What are the consequences of the Bush administration's decisions and actions?

[damgo]

Questions of Bush...

Does anyone have any answers to any of these besides shortsightedness or incompetence? Is any of it going to matter at all in 2004?

• Why didn't the Bush administration take steps to break up manipulation of prices in the energy market in 2001?
• Why didn't the Bush administration move more quickly and effectively to punish miscreants and restore confidence when it became clear that lots of people who worked for George W. Bush's friend "Kenny Boy" and lots of others were faking their corporate accounts?
• Why did the Bush administration impose a steel tariff?
• Why did the Bush administration push for a farm bill that reversed the progress toward agricultural subsidy reform that Newt Gingrich (in one of his few good deeds) and others had accomplished in the 1990s?
• Why is Afghanistan such a mess today, and the Bush administration so unwilling to "do nation building" in Afghanistan?
• Why were Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction not where the Bush administration believed them to be?
• Why did we attack Iraq without sufficient forces to rapidly search for and secure weapons of mass destruction (if any) before they were carried off by bandits and others who might want to sell them to Al Qaeda?
• Why did we attack Iraq without the forces or a plan to keep civil order in the country? Why did Bush sack his original Iraq reconstruction team (Garner, Bodine, etc) this week and put in a new one under Bremer?
• Why have we gone to such pains to annoy and alienate every single one of our allies? I mean, when the President of Mexico won't take a call from the President of the United States, something is very wrong.
• Why does Ariel Sharon feel that he can blow off every U.S. request designed to make the "roadmap for peace" more than a scrap of paper?
• Why has there been next to no progress on the Doha Round [of WTO talks]?
• Why do developing countries find that their access to the pharmaceuticals they need is still largely blocked?
• Why is Bush pushing a pointless long-term tax bill when all his economists are telling him we need stimulus now (before the election!)
• Why is Bush destroying the balanced budgets that were such a big part of the Republican Contract With America a few years ago?

[Some of this list taken from http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/ ]

 

[schwarzchildradius]

The only anomaly on the list is the steel tariff, which actually helped the US steel industry at a time of crisis (at the expense of poorer countries, ok); the rest of it is a collection of facts that point to one big hush-hush fact - Bush isn't really running things.
Most of the international points on the list are the responsibility of trade organizations like the WTO etc. The Government is in general working for powerful special interest groups, which THIS time represent mostly energy and drug companies. We're seeing a general disintegration of carefully designed regulatory institutions.
Deregulation is of course not always a bad thing, as such action got Germany back on its feet quickly after WW2. But the fact is that western civilization will fall (as would any democracy or republic) if all regulation disappears.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by damgo
Why were Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction not where the Bush administration believed them to be?

Well, I think this is simply old information they had, also, the satellite images are only from above, you can't really tell if a site is used for weapons production or a electricity. It seems that the potential weapons we have found are not specifically weapons sites either, they are mixed in with urban areas.

Why did we attack Iraq without sufficient forces to rapidly search for and secure weapons of mass destruction (if any) before they were carried off by bandits and others who might want to sell them to Al Qaeda?

IMO, we didn't use a lot of forces because this would appear as if we were looking to occupy Iraq, not liberate.

Why did we attack Iraq without the forces or a plan to keep civil order in the country? Why did Bush sack his original Iraq reconstruction team (Garner, Bodine, etc) this week and put in a new one under Bremer?

If we came in with our own police it would look like occupation. Also, civil order was basically kept, the looting and such were not as bad as the media made it out to be.

Why is Bush pushing a pointless long-term tax bill when all his economists are telling him we need stimulus now (before the election!)
Why is Bush destroying the balanced budgets that were such a big part of the Republican Contract With America a few years ago?

You worded these questions as if this is his intention, the future of these plans and the outcomes are opinions, if they do succeed in their intended plans, as is his hope, then his course of action would be praised...I don't have anything to contribute to why, because I don't see it as a bad thing because the plan isn't finished. You basically answered your own question, he doesn't see it as pointless.

[Some of this list taken from http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/ ]

Hmmm...questionable, are you asking these questions to ask them or do you really want to know answers because they are YOUR questions too?

No offense, I just find it weird how some people will take questions from other people and use them in their debates like they actually see it as a problem, when in fact they didn't even know that problem was a problem.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Well, I think this is simply old information they had, also, the satellite images are only from above, you can't really tell if a site is used for weapons production or a electricity. It seems that the potential weapons we have found are not specifically weapons sites either, they are mixed in with urban areas.

Well, the thingis that they said that they knew that he had the weapons (implying that they had specific intelligence).

IMO, we didn't use a lot of forces because this would appear as if we were looking to occupy Iraq, not liberate.

What does stopping people from running of with WMDs have to do with liberation? WMDs are the whole supposed reason for el war.

If we came in with our own police it would look like occupation. Also, civil order was basically kept, the looting and such were not as bad as the media made it out to be.

Like we aren't occupying? When prestigious museums get robbed because there is nobody there to defend them and you have vigilante groups roaming neighborhoods to protect them from looters, thing are pretty damn bad.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Like we aren't occupying? When prestigious museums get robbed because there is nobody there to defend them and you have vigilante groups roaming neighborhoods to protect them from looters, thing are pretty damn bad.

Media hype, the museum had what...25 things taken? I've had more than 25 things robbed from me while I was working at my job (gas station clerk)! Does that mean the United States is also in a state of panic and looters are running about?

The people that are running around with WMDs have nothing to do with liberation, I don't see what the removal of Saddam Hussein has to do with what people are stealing or how they are breaking laws? Liberation has one objective, the removal of the regime, naturally one would expect a state of panic or a sense of unchecked freedom when your government is removed, it will all come together again.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Media hype, the museum had what...25 things taken? I've had more than 25 things robbed from me while I was working at my job (gas station clerk)! Does that mean the United States is also in a state of panic and looters are running about?

More than one museum was stolen from. And we're not talking about beef jerkies being stolen. Also, note the vigilante groups.

Liberation has one objective, the removal of the regime, naturally one would expect a state of panic or a sense of unchecked freedom when your government is removed, it will all come together again.

The US did a horrible job of keeping order. They were more involved in statue-toppling photo shoots. I remember reading that at one of the museums, not even one US soldier was protecting it. The argument "**** happens" is just an excuse, as you can always try to minimise, which really did not happen.

 

[damgo]

kyle -- No, I had thought of all those before, with the exception of the WTO talks and the roadmap. I also highly respect Prof deLong, and while I don't always agree with him he is not the sort to nitpick and invent problems as a political attack.

re: WMDs, none have been found, and the teams searching for them have been disbanded.. supposedly a new more civilian authority is supposed to continue the search, but news reports suggest it's not high on their priorities. Many of the Marines when interviewed said the sites they had been assigned to search were looted before they could arrive.

re: order, that's wrong... it's pretty bad, in Baghdad at least. Lots and lots of info on this, the latest I've been readnig:

Fear of Baghdad Unrest Prompts a Halt in Sending Troops Home
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/i...00&en=de7cb47542e56aa8&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030526&s=fattah052603

re: the tax cuts, it's not just that I don't like them; it's that no Republican economists seem to think they're a good idea either. Alan Greenspan has said they will do more harm than help, since they're not matched by spending cuts. The Wall Street Journal notes

MINOR MEMOS: Trust us, it's good: Treasury gives a department award to assistant secretary for devising the first "dynamic-scoring" analysis for the Bush tax cuts, but still refuses to release his work to Congress or the press...

Senators privately lampoon Bush's stock-dividends break, and stimulus claims for the bill. Dissident Snowe, asked which fellow Republicans truly back it, says, "No names are coming to mind." In Indiana, Bush 26 times says plan would create jobs; Congress' analysts find short-term gains would "eventually likely" be reversed due to big deficits.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105305503426326700,00.html?mod=COLUMN

The Economist magazine has published articles saying they think it's a bad idea. Bush has been juggling around economic advisors, and they tend to come out saying this is a bad idea. Libertarian economist Megan McArdle (http://www.janegalt.net) just trashed it...

The conservative consensus seems to be that 1) the economy needs short-term stimulus aimed at creating jobs, while this plan will take years to have effect, 2) dividends cuts are good but these only last for three years, which is too short for businesses to adjust their practices and just a pain in the ass, and 3) running a big deficit is bad.

...

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by damgo
kyle -- No, I had thought of all those before, with the exception of the WTO talks and the roadmap. I also highly respect Prof deLong, and while I don't always agree with him he is not the sort to nitpick and invent problems as a political attack.

My apoligizes, I wasn't accusing you personally of taking these arguments and using them just to attack Bush.

 

[damgo]

No problem, I know what you mean... lots of times people pick a certain position and then go trolling for anything that looks like it might be evidence supporting it. But I think these are all real, serious problems. With the exception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars themselves, which were handled very well, Bush seems to be leaving a trail of embarrassing incompetence in his wake. Things like sacking his reconstruction team, not securing WMD sites, forgetting to include any aid to Afghanistan in the budget bill last year don't inspire confidence. All of these would be good for both the country and President Bush, and they are not infeasible.

I mean, Republicans are supposed to be the party of small government, fiscal conservatism, and free trade -- the issues where I am most sympathetic to them. But Clinton gave us NAFTA, GATT, and a balanced budget; under Bush we have protectionism, a huge deficit, and the biggest federal budgets in recent memory. Some of this can be blamed on the war and economy but not all... there is plenty of pork and Republican projects going through, and no one has made any effort to cut spending. Doesn't this seem wrong? We have a Republican President, both legislatures controlled by the Republicans, and social spending is going up without a peep. With these massive tax cuts, we're just going to have to pay it all of later, with interest...

 

[schwarzchildradius]

what effect do you think all these things will have?
*edit
all this government turmoil looks just like small town bad politics on a massive scale.
The burden for the national debt is now on consumers - its a service economy again. I don't mind having a national debt. What kills me is the interest.

 

[Ganshauk]

Why didn't the Bush administration take steps to break up manipulation of prices in the energy market in 2001?

Umm, what manipulation of prices? You mean the ones that were going on since the end of WWII? I think it probably because those freakin aliens in area 51 wouldn't let them. :)

Why didn't the Bush administration move more quickly and effectively to punish miscreants and restore confidence when it became clear that lots of people who worked for George W. Bush's friend "Kenny Boy" and lots of others were faking their corporate accounts?

I think he had to get elected first! Since Clinton didn't seem to mind, it had to take at least three weeks into his term of office before Bush could actually move on it.

Why did the Bush administration impose a steel tariff?

I suppose it was to protect the american steel industry from bankruptcy. Is this bad?

Why did the Bush administration push for a farm bill that reversed the progress toward agricultural subsidy reform that Newt Gingrich (in one of his few good deeds) and others had accomplished in the 1990s?

Im pissed about this one! I tried to not raise 3000 pigs last year and WTF?! The damn government refused to pay me for not raising them! Sorry miscreants!

Why is Afghanistan such a mess today, and the Bush administration so unwilling to "do nation building" in Afghanistan?

I agree. It was a much better place before we went in :P. All those troops maintaining peace until we can stabilize the region...its just asinine!

Why were Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction not where the Bush administration believed them to be?

Letter delivered to Whitehouse (3/25/03) :

"Dear Bush and Friends,

I, Saddam Hussein, wish to inform you that all my wmd's are either dumped into the river or buried in the middle of the stinking desert. The coordinates on GPS are :"...transcript untranslateable from this point on.

Darn it!

Why did we attack Iraq without sufficient forces to rapidly search for and secure weapons of mass destruction (if any) before they were carried off by bandits and others who might want to sell them to Al Qaeda?

I agree. After all, see above.

Why did we attack Iraq without the forces or a plan to keep civil order in the country? Why did Bush sack his original Iraq reconstruction team (Garner, Bodine, etc) this week and put in a new one under Bremer?

Hmmm, perhaps the original team had their thumbs up their ass? Imagine NY, DC, or LA w/o government. Could you do better?

Why have we gone to such pains to annoy and alienate every single one of our allies? I mean, when the President of Mexico won't take a call from the President of the United States, something is very wrong.

Is it? With that logic, the importation of kilotons of cocaine, cfc's, illegal aliens, and gang warfare is alright then? After all, Mexico is such a paragon of human rights, law, order, and civil control. When your "friends" stab you in the back, every good natured soul knows it is customary to kiss them on each cheek...even if there are four of them.

Why does Ariel Sharon feel that he can blow off every U.S. request designed to make the "roadmap for peace" more than a scrap of paper?

Because the little bits and peices of Jew's body parts tend to make that piece of paper too bloody to make out properly...

Why has there been next to no progress on the Doha Round [of WTO talks]?

Because we have nothing to gain by it. Better to ask : Why should we bend over and let every third world POS country nail us in the Ass?

Why do developing countries find that their access to the pharmaceuticals they need is still largely blocked?

LOL. You must be joking? If I want to score drugs, I go to Mexico (or Canada) pal. Maybe you should ask the barbaric government of third world countries.

Why is Bush pushing a pointless long-term tax bill when all his economists are telling him we need stimulus now (before the election!)

Why do you insist that government knows how to spend your money better than you do? And, btw, ALL the respectable non-partisan economists agree that letting people keep their own money is a good idea. IT IS YOUR MONEY! c'mon.

Why is Bush destroying the balanced budgets that were such a big part of the Republican Contract With America a few years ago?

Why are you letting shallow propoganda and engendered class warfare warp your perception to such an astounding degree as to even think that? IT IS YOUR MONEY! I say keep it and spend it yourself!

One last time people.

Taxes are YOUR MONEY. Not your neighbors. Not that panhandling schlep down the street who pulls in 60K a year tax-free. It is yours! Our country was founded upon the principle of illegal taxation. It astounds me how many of you demand even MORE taxation. What is it? Some perverse form of slave mentality? WTF is wrong with you people?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

ok you can save us all from poverty and terrorism? because the homeland security dept. will not receive my call.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by damgo
Does anyone have any answers to any of these besides shortsightedness or incompetence? Is any of it going to matter at all in 2004?

• Why didn't the Bush administration take steps to break up manipulation of prices in the energy market in 2001?
• Why didn't the Bush administration move more quickly and effectively to punish miscreants and restore confidence when it became clear that lots of people who worked for George W. Bush's friend "Kenny Boy" and lots of others were faking their corporate accounts?

Huge campaign donations from the siggest violators? The fact that his administration contains tons of 'former'(on paper) executives of these companies?

• Why did the Bush administration impose a steel tariff?
• Why did the Bush administration push for a farm bill that reversed the progress toward agricultural subsidy reform that Newt Gingrich (in one of his few good deeds) and others had accomplished in the 1990s?

Ok, no ideas on these...

• Why is Afghanistan such a mess today, and the Bush administration so unwilling to "do nation building" in Afghanistan?
• Why were Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction not where the Bush administration believed them to be?
• Why did we attack Iraq without sufficient forces to rapidly search for and secure weapons of mass destruction (if any) before they were carried off by bandits and others who might want to sell them to Al Qaeda?
• Why did we attack Iraq without the forces or a plan to keep civil order in the country? Why did Bush sack his original Iraq reconstruction team (Garner, Bodine, etc) this week and put in a new one under Bremer?

Because neither of these wars had anything to do with freedom, justice, or liberation?

• Why have we gone to such pains to annoy and alienate every single one of our allies? I mean, when the President of Mexico won't take a call from the President of the United States, something is very wrong.

Because this administration wants to bully the world into a weakened position, because rights, autonomy, and sovereignty only count for America?

• Why does Ariel Sharon feel that he can blow off every U.S. request designed to make the "roadmap for peace" more than a scrap of paper?

Because it says so in the Bible?

• Why has there been next to no progress on the Doha Round [of WTO talks]?

No clue, frankly

• Why do developing countries find that their access to the pharmaceuticals they need is still largely blocked?

Again, like liberty and justice, healthcare is only for (rich) Americans.

• Why is Bush pushing a pointless long-term tax bill when all his economists are telling him we need stimulus now (before the election!)
• Why is Bush destroying the balanced budgets that were such a big part of the Republican Contract With America a few years ago?

Short term profits for the people who finance his campaigns, and so that he can lie to those people who honestly believe that a $300 rebate check is more important than anything else.

 

[drag]

One thing I got'ta say is - Why do you
blaim Bush for this ? You should blaim
his administration and the whole
government. Bush himself is abviously
such a complete moron - just look at the guy...
I mean, he was probably ellected because
he looked to many people like the ordinary
guy next door, though I've no idea why many
people would think that the ordinary
guy nex door is good enough to be the US president.

Live long and prosper.

 

[damgo]

drag, you're right, I should have said the Bush administration. But Bush bears the final responsibility for selecting them and directing them.

Ganshauk, you said

How many of you, knowing my views remain open to my suggestions?

I could concoct a totally believable news story portraying my views and you could read it on the net. How many would it convince?

The answer is : NONE. You will believe what you want to believe. Be it incorrect, be it off base, be it totally asinine, it will not move you an inch. In fact, it is more likely to confirm you in your present frame of mind.

which is a good point. Now I ask you, how many of your answers above were based on knowledge of that issue, and how many were automatically defending Bush and assuming liberal critiques have no merit?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by damgo
drag, you're right, I should have said the
Bush administration. But Bush bears the
final responsibility for selecting them
and directing them.

I doubt they even let'im do that much...