Is Re-Electing Bush a Mistake Given His Presidential Record?

[Robert Zaleski]

Here’s a few numbers to play with. Now show us yours

In 1933 the United States had 25 percent unemployment, and this was a time in our history when the normal household had only one wage earner.

The GDP fell by 29 percent between 1929 and 1933.

The stock market lost over 80 percent of its value.

From 1970 personal bankruptcies have been increasing on a yearly basis, setting a new record high each year.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Well, that's just plain childish, Mr. Zaleski. I had the (obviously mistaken) impression you were above that type of thing.

I'm crushed. The only difference between my list and the one originally posted by Ivan is that I admit that mine contains lies, half-truths and innuendoes.

 

[the number 42]

I support any effort to put Sodamn Insane out of power. If he had mass weapons of destruction - he'd use them. If you don't realize that, you need a serious reality check. He uses weapons all the time against his own people and Country, you think he'd have a problem with using it against a Country that hates him?

If he would have used his chemical weapons against anyone, he would have used them against Israel. The fact that he never did speaks volumes about his intention to use them outside his own borders.

He even said that the US people would bleed and die if they invaded Iraq. He's completely delusional and nuts to make a threat like that.

Yep, he sure talked a good fight. Then hid in a hole.

Canadians should be more worried with the NDP getting into power than about Bush.

That's probably important to Canadians, but is hardly a global issue.

 

[JohnDubYa]

If he would have used his chemical weapons against anyone, he would have used them against Israel.

Except for the teensy-weensy fact that Isreal could retaliate with nuclear weapons, whereas the rest of Saddam's neighbors couldn't.

 

[the number 42]

I'm no military tactician, but I would have thought that using nuclear weapons on your immediate neighbours would backfire somewhat. Also, Israel would have to admit that it had nuclear weaponry, something it has denied for years. Not to mention all the other neighbours who would be directly effected by radiation, fallout etc., and the general political disapproval over someone daring to use nuclear weapons.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I'm no military tactician, but I would have thought that using nuclear weapons on your immediate neighbours would backfire somewhat.

A fat lot of good that would do Saddam.

Also, Israel would have to admit that it had nuclear weaponry, something it has denied for years.

Let me get this straight: Isreal would be more worried about the world finding out it had nuclear weapons than the criticism it would take for actually using them?

No matter how you slice it, a chemical attack on Israel would have created enormous problems for Saddam Hussein. Besides, an unprovoked chemical attack on Israel would have backfired in terms of public sentiment if Israel did not retaliate with nukes. Sure, a lot of Arabs hate Israel, but not all of them would have supported such a huge violation of international protocol.

Finally, your statement "If he would have used his chemical weapons against anyone, he would have used them against Israel" is just conjecture on your part. You don't know how Saddam thinks, so there is no way that you can make such a claim.

 

[Dissident Dan]

That's better than attacking and not taking over two countries. Americans don't consider military victories a bad thing.

Are you saying that you don't have any moral objections to an unnecessarial conquering countries?

I don't recall the US Treasury filing Chapter 11, or is this just hyperbole? If so, why should Americans buy it?

Bush is taking his hits for the economy, but no President is ever totally responsible, especially since the downward trends began before he took over.

The deficit is a number relating to the Federal government, not directly the private sector economy. The president is directly reponsible for his spending that has caused the greatest Federal deficit on record.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Are you saying that you don't have any moral objections to an unnecessarial conquering countries?

Depends on what you mean by "necessary." Bush wins this election largely on whether or not he can make the claim that the war was necessary.

The deficit is a number relating to the Federal government, not directly the private sector economy. The president is directly reponsible for his spending that has caused the greatest Federal deficit on record.

Only Congress can spend money. Only Congress can raise or lower taxes and pass budgets. It's in the Constitution.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Only Congress can raise or lower taxes and pass budgets. It's in the Constitution.

That's true, but the president's OMB prepares the budget, and the Congress works with what's there, not making a whole lot of changes. Also, the presiden'ts proposals, such as the medicare one, had the cost underestimated by $150 billion. Also, the president's war in Iraq has been extremely expensive, which Congress has to fund (although I very much disagree with their decision to abdicate their Constitutional power to wage War).

 

[russ_watters]

Depends on what you mean by "necessary." Bush wins this election largely on whether or not he can make the claim that the war was necessary.

Even of those who disagree with whether it was necessary, there are few that honestly believe ousting Saddam wasn't a good thing. That's why the Democrats aren't asking for Bush's head on a platter.

 

[russ_watters]

The deficit is a number relating to the Federal government, not directly the private sector economy. The president is directly reponsible for his spending that has caused the greatest Federal deficit on record.

With the caveat, of course, that the private sector economy is what primarily determines federal income via taxes.

 

[russ_watters]

I must admit to not having read the whole thread before. This post is wonderful:

The specific assertions are made. Show me the records that Bush is hiding.

Translation: 'I have no evidence, therefore the evidence must have been suppressed.' Uh huh. Is that how burden-of-proof works, Ivan? Haven't we had this discussion before?

Ivan: you are an axe murderer. Anything you say to try to refute that and any evidence you show is evidence that you are good at hiding/faking evidence. Prove me wrong.

According to the Sunday morning talking heads, just today as a matter of fact, barring unexpected major events, and historically, the now undecided votes will detemine this election.

As always. Isn't that tautological? That's why I don't watch those shows any more.

 

[kat]

Also, the president's war in Iraq has been extremely expensive, which Congress has to fund (although I very much disagree with their decision to abdicate their Constitutional power to wage War).

This is incorrect. Congress does not HAVE to fund the Iraq war. In fact, it was the refusal of Congress to fund the Vietnam war that inevitably ended it. Also, according historical court cases it was found that congressional aproval of finances for a war was in effect Congressional approval of that same war.

 

[loseyourname]

No matter how you slice it, a chemical attack on Israel would have created enormous problems for Saddam Hussein. Besides, an unprovoked chemical attack on Israel would have backfired in terms of public sentiment if Israel did not retaliate with nukes.

A chemical attack on Israel probably would have resulted in the US and Israel both going into Iraq and deposing Saddam.

 

[Dissident Dan]

This is incorrect. Congress does not HAVE to fund the Iraq war. In fact, it was the refusal of Congress to fund the Vietnam war that inevitably ended it. Also, according historical court cases it was found that congressional aproval of finances for a war was in effect Congressional approval of that same war.

I was not being clear enough. I did not mean that there is any law that mandates funding, but that it would have been ridiculous, as well as being political suicide, not to fund it.

 

[Dagenais]

A chemical attack on Israel probably would have resulted in the US and Israel both going into Iraq and deposing Saddam.

Oh wow! Israel is going to help! Oh wow! The Israelis are coming, run, run!

One of the reasons (through my biased, and only my biased opinion) that the US is in this war is because they support Israel. They should've stayed out of the middle east, but they decided to take Israel's side. That'll tend to piss-off the surrounding Muslim nations.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I must admit to not having read the whole thread before. This post is wonderful: Translation: 'I have no evidence, therefore the evidence must have been suppressed.' Uh huh. Is that how burden-of-proof works, Ivan? Haven't we had this discussion before?

Ivan: you are an axe murderer. Anything you say to try to refute that and any evidence you show is evidence that you are good at hiding/faking evidence. Prove me wrong. As always. Isn't that tautological? That's why I don't watch those shows any more.

I will grant you that some of the language is hyped, but Russ, you would have me prove a negative? I'm surprised at your flawed logic.

Lets make it easy. Show me the sealed records from Bush's tour as Governer...or don't they keep gubuantorial records any more?

 

[russ_watters]

I will grant you that some of the language is hyped, but Russ, you would have me prove a negative? I'm surprised at your flawed logic.

That's a mirror I'm showing you Ivan. Some of those assertions in your opening post are positive, some are negative. The point is you are trying to shift the burden-of-proof. For example:

Lets make it easy. Show me the sealed records from Bush's tour as Governer...or don't they keep gubuantorial records any more?

Well you tell me - are there records and if so, what do they say? If you have no evidence, say you have no evidence but you think there might be some somewhere that could be evidence of impropriety (you hope). But excuse me if I don't leap on the bandwagon with such a weak assertion.

 

[russ_watters]

...it would have been ridiculous, as well as being political suicide, not to fund it.

Yes, God knows, the worst thing any politician - especially a Democrat - can do is stand up for what they believe.

Could you explain to me why it would be political suicide? Many Democrats, Kerry included, argued against it, then voted for it, then claimed they were duped into voting for it (nevermind what that says about their gullibility, nor the fact that they argued against it before voting for it). Kerry's taking a lot of flak for that. In fact, this seemingly predominantly Democratic trait is one of the reasons I'm a Republican.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's a mirror I'm showing you Ivan. Some of those assertions in your opening post are positive, some are negative. The point is you are trying to shift the burden-of-proof. For example: Well you tell me - are there records and if so, what do they say? If you have no evidence, say you have no evidence but you think there might be some somewhere that could be evidence of impropriety (you hope). But excuse me if I don't leap on the bandwagon with such a weak assertion.

Well, you seem to say show me the records that we can't get and I'll believe it. Okay, in order to do justice to the issue I will dig up some specific information about all of this.

I am a little surprised at your objection. I thought this was all well known but maybe not so.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Yes, God knows, the worst thing any politician - especially a Democrat - can do is stand up for what they believe.

Could you explain to me why it would be political suicide? Many Democrats, Kerry included, argued against it, then voted for it, then claimed they were duped into voting for it (nevermind what that says about their gullibility, nor the fact that they argued against it before voting for it). Kerry's taking a lot of flak for that. In fact, this seemingly predominantly Democratic trait is one of the reasons I'm a Republican.

We are not talking about the authorization for the war. We are talking about the $87 billion. He was never against funding the troops. He voted for a proposal to pay for it by rescinding bush tax cuts for the wealthy. When that failed, he cast a "protest" vote, knowing full well that the bill would pass, against the final measure to allocate $87 billion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Isn't that tautological? That's why I don't watch those shows any more.

I don't think so. For example, we might see that Bush's support is very soft, and at the last minute a lot of Y2K Bush voters will switch and vote for Kerry. This happened with Carter and Reagan. Almost no one saw the landslide coming, as I remember. The point today is that the established support in both camps is thought to be firm. Those who are declared as undecided are the only game left for either side to win.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A History of Refusing to Release Documents

...But now, facing far more serious allegations than fundraising irregularities, the President has categorically refused to release critical documents in a host of areas.

Many examples are given.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=116445


More to come.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What George Bush and Rick Perry don't want you to know

Closing Open Records

...The last time Bush and Perry hooked up in an attempt to defeat the Texas Public Information Act was two years ago, when the new governor tried to help the new president keep his state papers out of the hands of journalists and scholars. Now the two leaders are at it again, threatening to create an important exception to disclosure of the same Bush records and thereby restricting the public's right to know...

...In the latest dispute over the Bush papers, however, the president is winning on points. This round began in August, following the publication of an article tracking Gov. Bush's decision-making process that had led to the execution of 151 men and two women during his six-year tenure in Austin. [continued]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-11-07/pols_feature.html

But Mr. Bush's Texas records were moved back to state custody after a ruling from the attorney general

http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=3442

 

[Ivan Seeking]

100 Reasons to choose from

The Top Ten reasons given:

1. Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

2. Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

3. Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

4. Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

5. Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

6. Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

7. Deriding "nation-building" during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history.

8. Predicting along with others in his administration that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

9. Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

10. Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.[90 more reasons follow]

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Okay, here goes:

That's better than attacking and not taking over two countries. Americans don't consider military victories a bad thing.

As an American, I consider needless deaths during war a "bad thing."--regardless of who comes out on top.

Bush is taking his hits for the economy, but no President is ever totally responsible

...unless he happens to be a Democrat, like Jimmy Carter

 

[Elizabeth1405]

By the way, the word "Americans" is capitalized.

Relax. The guy is from Canada, and he mispelled and failed to capitalize the word "Canadian" too.

 

[loseyourname]

As an American, I consider needless deaths during war a "bad thing."--regardless of who comes out on top.

And what's needless? Was the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo needless? Was the dropping of the A-bomb needless? Was General Sherman's total destruction of the cities of Atlanta and Savannah needless?

 

[adrenaline]

There is a more subtle but much more sinister reason not to vote for Bush.

Voting for Bush means voting for the status quo dismal intelligence that allows Al Queda to thrive.


What remains inexplicable to me is why the Bush administration would believe that the attacks did not prove the need for an urgent overhaul of U.S. intelligence, but that business as usual would suffice? Whatever one thinks of Bush on other subjects, this decision remains unexplained and undefended.

Bush, in his most inexplicable action as president, has made no substantial changes in either the structure of the intelligence community or in its personnel...yet the pro Bush advocates wants us to believe by voting for him, we are voting for a stronger antiterrorism defensive front.

Let me explain:


The CIA, the NSA and the vast apparatus of the U.S. intelligence community were created in the late 1940s with one purpose: to combat the Soviet Union.

The end of the Cold War should have led to a rethinking of both mission and organization. There has been some the former, but hardly any of the latter



Soviet intelligence, and thus ours, made certain fundamental assumptions about how intelligence operations should be carried out:

1. The primary purpose of soviet or american intelligence was to penetrate the decision-making layers of opponent states and to transmit information to a central authority. The primary means for achieving this was to plant agents inside the CIA of KGB; the secondary means was technical intelligence.


2. The secondary purpose of our countries' intelligence agencey was to use these agents to obscure intelligence activities . In other words, agents were also were also used to falsify intelligence.

We became much more heavily dependent on technical means of intelligence-gathering than did the Soviets. Where the Soviets would try to recruit well-placed Americans to extract information, we would try to tap into Soviet systems of communication to gather the same information. The Soviets were obsessed with protecting their assets, we with protecting our technical capabilities.


For the United States, the terrorist groups of the 1970s and 1980s were not seen as independent actors, but as entities designed or at least guided by the KGB toward psychological and political ends. On the whole, this was not a bad way to view the world. The KGB used these groups -- particularly Palestinian groups -- to create political environments that were conducive to Soviet ends. The Soviets maintained a program designed to seduce, manipulate and manage the leadership of these terrorist groups. The United States understood that the best way to defeat these groups was by disrupting their relations with the Soviets. Both sides were quite realistic for a while..

By the time of Desert Storm, the Soviets were no longer key enablers of terrorism. The problem is that our CIA has lost the prism through which it viewed organizations that were using terrorism as a weapon. To be more precise, where the United States previously had viewed the Arab world through the prism of the CIA-KGB competition, the end of the rivalry did not bring with it a new prism. The CIA knew that the Soviets were no longer managing the situation, but they did not develop a new way of thinking about that situation.



Al Qaeda has been designed to be different from predecessor groups that used terrorism.

First, there is no dependency on a single intelligence agency. Al Qaeda used relations with Pakistani and Saudi intelligence, among others, but did not depend on them. Second, the group understood how the Soviets and Americans had used intelligence during the Cold War, and created an organization that was not easily penetrated by either human or technical means. They don't run cables that submarines could tap into or chatter on car phones, so the NSA has limited opportunities to intercept.


The CIA, institutionally, does not seem to have the frame of reference for al Qaeda. This agency was organized for penetrating the upper circles and lines of communication of a nation-state or a state-sponsored group. It was built to deal with the KGB and its creations.

What had been built to be congruent with Soviet intelligence is now left standing alone, congruent with nothing.



He believes profoundly and completely that the same organizational structure and people that took down the KGB would eventually take down al Qaeda -- no wholesale changes required. It is understandable that people who had won once would think that they could win again using the same tools. It is inexplicable that the president and his advisers would believe them. Simple common sense should tell U.S. leaders that it is simply fantastic to believe that a force built to defeat the Soviet Union can serve to defeat al Qaeda.

However, I'm not sure Kerry is going to make this a priority agenda either. At least, not a voting agenda.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

And what's needless? Was the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo needless? Was the dropping of the A-bomb needless? Was General Sherman's total destruction of the cities of Atlanta and Savannah needless?

You may want to go back and read my original post. I'm saying the DEATHS of so many civilians is needless, not necessarily the acts that lead up to these deaths. There were "needless" deaths in all the situations your mention--civilians dying as a result of war is, in my opinion, needless. More appropriately, I consider the death of nearly 1,000 American soldiers in Iraq and the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians by foreign invaders to their country to be needless. And I think "needless" is a good way to describe all of the Vietnam war.

 

[loseyourname]

You may want to go back and read my original post. I'm saying the DEATHS of so many civilians is needless, not necessarily the acts that lead up to these deaths. There were "needless" deaths in all the situations your mention--civilians dying as a result of war is, in my opinion, needless. More appropriately, I consider the death of nearly 1,000 American soldiers in Iraq and the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians by foreign invaders to their country to be needless. And I think "needless" is a good way to describe all of the Vietnam war.

Well then, if you think civilians dying as a result of war is needless, and needless deaths is a valid reason for opposing a war, then you would have opposed every war the US has been involved in since the Civil War. Heck, in the other examples I used, we intentionally targeted and killed civilians. In a war like the one we're involved in today, and in Vietnam, civilians were killed because the enemy disguises itself as civilians and makes it difficult to tell who's a threat and who is not a threat. I would think the intentional targeting of civilians would be more objectionable. I'm guessing you nonetheless object to this current war more than you would to WWII or the Civil War, so for the sake of consistent reasoning, you must have another reason - not civilian deaths.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

In a war like the one we're involved in today, and in Vietnam, civilians were killed because the enemy disguises itself as civilians and makes it difficult to tell who's a threat and who is not a threat.

Did you ever hear of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam? None of those civilians were mistaken for anything than what they were--poor people in a small village.The soldiers killed them because they were easy targets, and they were eventually prosecuted for it. Vietnam was a lose-lose situation--the soldiers lost, and their victims lost. It was a mistake, and apparently nobody has learned anything from that. I oppose ALL war. I don't see how bombing other people to smithereens (whether "intentional" or not) is an acceptable solution to anything. I know a very sweet gentleman who is a WWII veteran. He is very conservative politically, yet is against the death penalty. Why? He admits to killing hundreds of Germans in WWII. He doesn't regret killing them, because that's what he had to do at the time for himself and his country. He is against the death penalty not because of what it does to the person being executed, but what it does to us. He knows what effect killing will have on the psyche of someone, regardless of whether it is justified. Nobody "wins" from war. That's why I don't understand the gung-ho attitude of people in this country to the war in Iraq. How did killing and bombing become something to cheer and brag about?

 

[Sting]

How did killing and bombing become something to cheer and brag about?

Elizabeth, if I may respond to this:

People may view a situation like Iraq where civilians are bombed and killed in a positive light because they feel that killing civilians is killing a potential terrorist. Killing a potential terrorist means less threat for the world.

Allow me to embellish that I don't necessarily agree with the logic. I'm only evaluating the perspective of why people view bombing and killing with a positive outlook.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

this:

People may view a situation like Iraq where civilians are bombed and killed in a positive light because they feel that killing civilians is killing a potential terrorist. Killing a potential terrorist means less threat for the world.

Gosh, I really hope people don't think that way! If they do, then I assume they'd want to just nuke all of the Middle East. Afterall, we never know if who's a terrorist and who's not over there, right?

 

[Prometheus]

In a war like the one we're involved in today, and in Vietnam, civilians were killed because the enemy disguises itself as civilians and makes it difficult to tell who's a threat and who is not a threat.

Your viewpoint is certainly one way to look at it. Another way that some people look at it is that the U.S. had no business in Vietname or in Iraq. Therefore, the reason that civilians were killed is that the U.S. invaded these 2 countries when it had no business doing so, and in the process used such excuses as yours to jusitify killing people that never should have been placed under attack in the first place.