Did Bush actually say this? I was half asleep listening to the news and they reported this, but I couldn't remember later if they had played an audio clip of the President's appearance on TV last night or whether reporter was supposedly quoting him.
A "war president?"
What the heck is that?
Is this a sign that the guy is just mindful of his legacy or is "war president" code for something important and mystical in the American ethos?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think he meant "warp resident"
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:A "war president?"
What the heck is that?
Historically, it's someone who actually calls for raising taxes to pay for the war.
Among other things. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Oh thank goodness. I was afraid this was related to Bob’s nomination for forum president on the other thread, and I thought I was going to have to start organizing a Hatrack peace movement.
Posted by Paercival (Member # 1408) on :
you can read the whole thing here, where he did in fact say that.
I think he meant that he's a president during wartime, which involves a new set of responsibilities and concerns that peacetime presidents don't have to deal with as often. I mean, while it's a bad sound bite, there's nothing damning about the meaning in context.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
quote: Oh thank goodness. I was afraid this was related to Bob’s nomination for forum president on the other thread, and I thought I was going to have to start organizing a Hatrack peace movement.
I knew it! He never should have moved to Texas...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Okay...just a segment to put this in context:
quote:The commission I set up, Tim, is one that will help future presidents understand how best to fight the war on terror, and it's an important part of the kind of lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in Afghanistan prior to us going in, lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous world. And that's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't.
I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
Um...that last part, about seeing the world "the way it is" sounds a little odd coming from a guy who just may have made the largest blunder in misusing flawed intelligence data in the history of Western Civilization.
The fact that he sees things through the lens of war makes me want him out of the Oval Office more than ever. I think his judgement is skewed.
I'd rather have a person in there who sees the world through the lens of what is best for American AND the world.
It would've been nice if he'd stuck to THAT theme (putting this back in context) when he started talking about himself as a "war president."
I want a t-shirt with his face on it and the phrase "I'm a war president" emblazoned across his forehead.
Yuck!
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
quote: I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
Oh, what I'd give for red pen editing function on this board. The education reform President needs to go back to school. You know, we really don't need a Rhodes Scholar in the White House, but someone who at least knows the rules of the English language would be good. I wish I "was" President, cause I "got" the ability to see danger in the world, too. Obviously, any reforms to the system will come too late for him.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
If he's a war president, can I expect him to ask for a formal declaration of war from congress any time soon?
-Bok
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
speaking of George W. shirts. I have 2 GW BUSH shirts.
both black with white graphics and letters. one is an image of him and NOT MY PRESIDENT along the side of his face.
and another with an image of him and the words "HEY GEORGE W. F*CK YOU AND YOUR DADDY!"
that latter one is fun to wear to family functions and church picnics.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What Bok said.
Rat, when are we not going to be in this 'war' any longer? How do we know when it's over?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He said it was over back in May... Ironically American soldiers seem to be dying every week... -_-
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Are we at war?
No declaration of war.
No active military objectives.
No country is our enemy.
Yet we have troops in the field.
Troops are killing, being wounded, and being killed regularly.
Our excuse to hold American Citizens without trial, and sending others out to be tortured is that they are Enemy Combatants and we must go to extreme lengths when at war.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Um...that last part, about seeing the world "the way it is" sounds a little odd coming from a guy who just may have made the largest blunder in misusing flawed intelligence data in the history of Western Civilization
You know, after watching the movie "Pearl Harbor" the other day -- I thought of how screwed that president was -- his intelligence people told him there was a "possible" threat -- more intuition than actual hard data -- and they didn't act on the information in time. Pearl Harbor happened.
Our president acts on intelligence that wasn't enough hard data -- and it turns out that possibly there wasn't a WMD threat.
Seems to me, that as president, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If there had been WMD and we'd been caught off guard, then he would be damned for that. Since he acted proactively and on advice he was given, now he's damned for that.
I'm sure glad I'm not president. It is easy to be "armchair quarterbacks" (or in this case, Presidents) when you are sitting at home only learning information from mass media.
Farmgirl
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Farmgirl, I just want to know what sort of info he was relying on.
If he was mistaken, we can correct it. But he won't even let us know if he was mistaken.
-Bok
Posted by Ronin (Member # 1749) on :
I don't know what everyones problem is about WMD's anyway.
Who cares? Its not like we didnt KNOW that he had them, we've seen him use Scud Missles against Isreal. Hell, did anyone watch that press confrence with the CIA where they outlined everything they were right about and everything they were wrong about. Saddam had a flying UMV that spewed GAS overhead of people. He quite literally had a flying vehicle of death.
Is anyone sad that Saddam is out of power?
What if this happened in WW2: "Hitler did not have WMD!!!" WHO CARES?! HES HITLER!
It would be a diffrent story if Bush lied but he didn't, he went over exactly what intellgence said. Further more, he didn't say Saddam was an imminient threat(though Clinton did when he was pres) He did however say that he was going to take action before Saddam was an imminient threat.
Which given their nuclear program probably would have been within the next 3-4 years.
[frustration]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Bok
Why don't you go to work for the CIA or the NSA then, if you have such a dire need to know the details.
Me -- I don't think the public needs to know everything that our intelligence agencies know, for obvious reasons. Society in general seems to either 1) blow things out of proportion, or 2) ignore important stuff. That's why we have trained people to analyze this stuff over years and interpret. Sure, they aren't perfect.
I agree with Ronin -- Saddam was a very bad leader -- killed thousands of his own citizens, for Pete's sake! It doesn't matter to me whether there were ever WMD or not.
quote:Me -- I don't think the public needs to know everything that our intelligence agencies know, for obvious reasons. Society in general seems to either 1) blow things out of proportion, or 2) ignore important stuff. That's why we have trained people to analyze this stuff over years and interpret. Sure, they aren't perfect.
That's right, best if the people don't know what reasons our leaders had for starting a war, or why they decided OBL was the 9-11 attacker, or who they've imprisoned and for what reasons.
If we don't know what our leaders have done and why, how can we make informed decisions about voting?
quote:I agree with Ronin -- Saddam was a very bad leader -- killed thousands of his own citizens, for Pete's sake!
Pervez Musharraf is almost as bad, and he's our new ally.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
There's at least some plausible evidence to suggest that the President knew of the Pearl Harbor attack and DIDN'T warn anyone. Didn't take even basic precautions.
That's a lot different from launching a pre-emptive strike against Japan based on what was admittedly incomplete information.
At least I see it as very different.
Recasting this as "damned if you do, damned if you don't" I think is a little too jaded, IMHO. I get that you were maybe injecting a little criticism in there of all us Monday morning presidents, but I think in this case, it's necessary.
If we're not allowed to question the actions of our President, we might as well be living in a dictatorship. I think that people would've been far more willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt if he had come forward with his evidence --which he never actually did.
I would've even supported him more than I do now if he'd come forward and said "hey, we've got some spotty information that really has us worried. Given Saddam Hussein's reluctance to comply with UN resolutions and the indications in this partial information, we're concerned enough about the threat his regime poses that we think we'd better go in there in force and make sure they don't try anything."
But instead, they talked about proof and "urgent" threats. Now it turns out we were just getting into semantic arguments about what is meant by "proof" and "urgent."
By the criteria he now says are valid (they were thinking about developing these weapons), there isn't a country on Earth that we couldn't justify wiping off the face of the planet if we so choose.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I get that you were maybe injecting a little criticism in there of all us Monday morning presidents, but I think in this case, it's necessary
And just why is it necessary? You will NEVER have all the information he had at the time he made the decision -- no matter what is released. You will NEVER know what YOU would have decided in exactly the same position.
I vote Bob for president. He thinks he can do a so much better job of making the hard decisions and not be swayed by popular opinion.
I wouldn't mind the criticism, Bob -- it just seems like that is ALL you do about Bush. Never try to point out what he has done right. You must be an impossible person to be around if all you focus on is the negative of a leader and none of the positive. Do you treat your boss that way?
a-fired-up-Farmgirl
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...Actually, I only do this to people I actively dislike. And Bush as a person as well as a leader is among the worst people I have ever encountered.
But...just so you know, I have acknowledged that he did a creditable job as governor of Texas, according to people whose judgement I trust. I don't have any first hand knowledge of his performance. But I have given him credit for it.
Also, I've said in other places here on this forum that he's not as bad as I expected in some areas of his performance. While, at the same time, I think his cabinet is much much worse than I expected.
Specifically with regard to Iraq, I do believe the accusation that the Bush team had decided from day 1 of their administration that Iraq was going to be dealt with "once and for all." I do believe that they (consciously or subconsciously) ignored contrary evidence and amplified corroborating evidence to support a military solution. And I believe that they are lying about it now.
Given those beliefs, I cannot in good conscience cut this man and his staff some slack. I think they are just short of war criminals and I wouldn't tolerate their behavior if it was coming from the President of France or Canada or Timbuktu so I shouldn't tolerate it from our own leadership.
But the bottom line, FG, is that I simply do not for an instant believe that they did "the best with the information they had available." They did what they wanted with the information they had available, and that is a very very different thing.
To me.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay - let's just agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that. This is probably not a good day for me to choose to discuss it.
And I have to leave for lunch now, so by the time I get back, I will have lost my fire -- be back to my usual easy-going self. And I really don't want to fight about it.
((hugs))
Farmgirl
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bob -- its also worth noting that the Lieutenant Governor of Texas is generally considered to have more power .
Scroll down a bit.
Posted by Der Grammatikfuehrer (Member # 5015) on :
quote:Oh, what I'd give for red pen editing function on this board. The education reform President needs to go back to school. You know, we really don't need a Rhodes Scholar in the White House, but someone who at least knows the rules of the English language would be good. I wish I "was" President, cause I "got" the ability to see danger in the world, too. Obviously, any reforms to the system will come too late for him.
Yeah, 'cause knowing the "rules" of a language makes you a good president.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Not knowing the rules of grammar makes it harder to sell you "No Child Left Behind" educational reform plan.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
For the record, I'm somewhat gladdened by his NASA budget. I don't agree with all the details, or the timetables, but it seems like a decent plan for NASA to implement.
-Bok
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, Farmgirl might be on to something. Bob here actually might stand to make a better president than Mr. Bush Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: Bob here actually might stand to make a better president than Mr. Bush
Well, given the proper lab equipment and a few hundred incubators, I'm sure I could come up with something.
FG's a quitter! FG's a quitter!
Actually, I didn't want to fight about it either. Let's be friends.
(ps: I win)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Not knowing the rules of grammar makes it harder to sell you "No Child Left Behind" educational reform plan.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but it's hilarious.
Posted by Ronin (Member # 1749) on :
Bob for pres!?!?
No way, I would no sooner trust Bob with my fragile phyce then with the COUNTRY!
err...oh wait..crap
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: FG's a quitter!
..back from lunch
Actually when I thought about it -- I get the last laugh...
Because come November, my vote will cancel out Bob's vote.
...then my son votes (so we are one up on Bob's vote)
...then my mom votes....
So in the end, my household overshadows his vote 3:1. I win!
Farmgirl
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well, I have more posts than you, so there! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
True, but some of us are gaining on you. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Shucks... I was really hoping this thread was going to be Bob's declaration of war on Philoticweb or something.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
I would really suggest reading the full transcript of that interview; regardless of your political opinions, bush's absolute lack of ability to form even the most rudimentary english sentences is absolutely hilarious. As i was reading it i was thinking how fun it would be to print the whole thing out, mark up all the errors, and send it to the white house or something. i doubt one could go through more than two paragraphs without having to mark something...
note: i wouldn't do it if you're feeling cynical though, it's sort of scary to think that someone with so little ability to communicate (or, in my opinion, think analytically) is in charge of the world's largest military.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Regardless of your political opinions, bush's absolute lack of ability to form even the most rudimentary english sentences is absolutely hilarious.
Yeah. He made a couple of usage errors in two paragraphs. Take your trolling elsewhere.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He said it was over back in May... Ironically American soldiers seem to be dying every week... -_-
Um, no he didn't. He specifically did not say hostilities were over.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Even if Bob does have it in for Bush, what exactly is wrong with that? I say that if OSC can have it in for Clinton, then Bob can have it in for Bush.
Though if both were to run for President, I have to say I think I'd vote for Bob. OSC is funny, but Bob is a riot. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If OSC and I were running mates -- sort of in a job-sharing relationship perhaps? -- we could corner the religio-agnostic, liberal-conservative, familyvalue/personal freedom bloc of voters no problem!
I read that whole interview and I do have to say that it IS hilarious. But that often happens when one reads a transcript of spoken words. The sentence fragments and blunders don't really come across if you watch and listen to the person, but when you read what was actually said, it is shockingly incoherent much of the time.
I started practicing my speaking habits once I discovered this in a session where we had a court reporter taking notes. She read back my statements, which I thought were so coherent and meaningful. It was gobbledygook, just like GWB's interview.
Now, why a President would allow himself to get into that kind of unscripted situation when he knows he's not a good extemporaneous speaker, I don't know. But I'm betting he came off as sincerely concerned about the welfare of Americans. It probably played very well.
I can't really ding him for incoherence. It's funny, but it's always funny. Only very polished speakers ever get better at this. And a polished speaker means he's been over-prepped.
I kind of like spontaneity in interviews.
Sometimes they REALLY slip up and give away something important. I saw some possibilities in this interview. Once he mentions the name of a group working in Iraq then says "Let me stop there" and moved on to something else. It was weird -- like no-one is supposed to know the name of that group.
There was another time when he said something was "wrong" then he said about two seconds later that it was "right." I find that kind of slip revealing as well because it's the sort of mistake people don't ordinarily make -- confusing polar opposite value terms. Makes me wonder whether he was trying to deny something that ultimately was true.
He had some very weak answers to a few of the more pointed questions. I wasn't too surprised. He hasn't got a lot to go on in his reversals of past statements (especially campaign promises).
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
john boy, i'm completely serious. it's amusing.
I don't have time right now to post every grammatical error and instance of him loosing his train of thought mid-sentance, but here's the first few i found.
quote: Now, look, we are in a political season. I fully understand people — He's trying to avoid responsibility. There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether or not I made a — good calls, whether or not I used good judgment, whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power, and I look forward to that debate, and I look forward to talking to the American people about why I made the decisions I made.
Now, when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went.
By the way, quoting a lot of their data — in other words, this is unaccounted for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential — I believe it is essential — that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent.
Well, but what wasn't wrong was the fact that he had the ability to make a weapon. That wasn't right.
In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences.
And by the way, by clearly stating policy, whether it be in Afghanistan or stating the policy that we expect you, Mr. Saddam Hussein, to disarm, your choice to disarm, but if you don't, there will be serious consequences in following through, it has had positive effects in the world.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I would vote for OSC and not Bob.
I don't understand the "no declaration of war" thing. Didn't congress vote to give Bush authority to go to war? Authority means it was his decision and responsibility, not "form and plan and then please check back with us after we've checked with our pollsters."
By the way, my first post was just a stupid pun. It should not be construed to mean I think Bush is a Star Trek fan or anything terrible like that.
Posted by Gottmorder (Member # 5039) on :
quote:He said it was over back in May... Ironically American soldiers seem to be dying every week... -_-
No, he said the major fighting was over. We are still at war.
[ February 10, 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Gottmorder ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Kerinin, I know you're serious. I'm just saying you're a troll. I also don't trust your evaluation of anyone's command of the language, considering you can't even spell my name right when it's right in front of you. Here are the errors in your last post:
I don't have time right now to post every grammatical error and instance of him loosing his train of thought mid-sentance, but here's the first few i found.
[ February 11, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
(continues to worship Jon Boy) Jon Boy
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
::Joins Ryuko:: Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
quote:consider you can't even spell
Shouldn't that be 'considering', Jon Boy?
But the truth is, you guys can short stroke all over each others posts, and it won't prove a thing. Typos will always get you in the end.
I do have to ask a question though. Other than be a republican, what exactly has ol' W done to create such fanatical devotion among his supporters?
I dislike paying taxes. I like small government. I fall well into the conservative side of the spectrum. No one would ever mistake me for a democrat. So, having said that:
W is a horrifying president. The reasons are many and varied, and argued over at length. But the one that you CAN NOT justify, no matter how hard you try, is the incarcaration of dozens of people with no access to any judicial process or legal council. The executive branch has basically been flipping off the judicial system every time it asks for an accounting on this situation.
You can't f***ing do that people, no matter what the justification, or the whole damn system goes down the tubes.
We are, all of us, a half step away from tyranny, all the time. It happens in the blink of an eye. Japanese citizens were stripped of their property and incarcerated during WWII for the crime of being Japanese. Jehovah's Witnesses were incarcerated during WWII for being 'seditionist'. They were later cleared of all charges, but still spent nine months in prison. It happens so fast no one sees it coming until afterwards.
You know what protects us from it happening again? Our horror at the idea of wrongful imprisonment and our system of checks and balances that keeps one group from arbitrarily deciding another group needs to be in prison.
The combination of the Patriot Act ("if you want to get people to go to war, tell them they are being attacked, then accuse anyone who is anti-war of being unpatriotic" -paraphrased from interview with Goebbels after WWII), and the imprisonment without trial of people who are nothing more than accused, is horrific. If you aren't terrified, you are living in a fantasy world. And we have members of the presidents staff quoted as saying that since this is a 'war on terror', then anti-war protests are acts of terrorism. Holy crap.
Is it worth supporting this sort of thing just so that 'our guy' gets to stay in office?
The attack of 9/11 did its work very well. It didn't kill America, but it gave it a nasty infection. I hope we get well soon.
[ February 11, 2004, 03:46 AM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Slash, I'm in awe of that post.
Thanks!!!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well said, Slash.
-Bok
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Slash,
Don't intrepret my defense of Bush as meaning I agree with everything he represents. There is no one I agree with 100%, as I'm sure you don't either.
I personally abhor his environmental stances, and the Patriot Act. However, much of that could have been controlled/overridden by Congress, so I don't see it as something Bush is solely responsible for.
I just believe in showing some loyalty to the existing government. I don't feel like tearing down our own leadership is a good attitude to have as Americans -- it makes us appear weak and divided to other countries.
Years ago, when Roosevelt(?) was president (I may be wrong on the details of this -- I just remember this story from my grandparents) -- during the great depression and the TVA and all that -- farmers were told to kill their new calves, throw out their milk, etc. -- I guess to increase demand and bump the economy (again, I'm hazy on details). But I remember clearly grandma saying that although her father disagreed with this policy tremendously, they still DID it, because they showed respect for their leaders, and they want to teach their kids respect for authority. It was not a popular policy, but the idea wasn't torn apart in the media, the people did as instructed, and the country recovered.
I personally very much disliked most of the Clinton Administration -- especially the man and the moral of the man himself. However, I would still treat him with respect and not feel a need to bash him publically, as many others love to do here on a public forum. We elected him as the leader, and by doing so, we agree to follow his leadership for the time he is in office.
Technically, I am not a republican -- although I come from an all-republican family. I am registered as an Independent.
But whether Bush wins or someone else wins, I will give them my respect.
Farmgirl
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nobody swears on oath to the President (though a small number swear an oath to protect the President). Oaths are sworn to the Constitution and (through that) to the people.
The President is a citizen with great powers, but we have no special duty to him, just as we have no special duty to any citizen -- only to the acts of his which are empowered by the Constitution and the people.
[ February 11, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But there really is very little a president does solely of his own accord (except by Executive Order, perhaps) -- most everything else has to be approved by the Congress.
So how come I don't see you people jumping all over the House & Senate's approval of all these things you disagree with?
Farmgirl
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes, but the president can always veto legislation he disagrees with OR he feels would be detrimental to his oath.
However, this president has been in at the ground floor helping to shape the legislation that reaches him, hence is lack of the use of the veto. This sort of tactic predates him a bit; Clinton increasingly did this as well, though with a House that was controlled by the opposite party, it was a bit more difficult to do so. I believe there is an article out on the web that goes into detail about the increasingly lower use of the veto.
The thing is, the Reps and Senators represent smaller components of the US. The president represents us all. I think this is one reason why there is a difference. A related reason is that if someone brought up the lack of spine in most of, say, the democrats in Congress, there wouldn't be much argument over it, except maybe pointing out that both the Senate and the House are republican controlled. What the democrats can do, even if they were unanimous, is little, especially since few blocs of Congress have ever shown as much solidarity in voting tendencies as the current republican majorities.
-Bok
[ February 11, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Good views, Slash. I only believe in respecting authority when they give me a reason to respect them. i can't believe Roosevelt ordered them to do that! What a waste. But he was a cool president in that time... I wonder if he's responsible for why they throw a way a ton of perfectly good vegetables -_-. Dang, I hate that. My problem is I have not found a reason NOT to dislike Bush's policies. i've read the news, looked at some of the news on TV. I just don't like the guy. I never have. Even when I was watching the debate back in 2000 I culd not help thinking that both Bush and Gore were MORONS I know it's not nice, but their statements were ridiculous! And after he got elected I still couldn't find any proof that he was doing any good for the country. Last year, my computer was out of commision for about a month so i listened to NPR a lot. I just couldn't agree with the war from the very beginning, but I Couldn't figure out why. On one side there was a whole pack of people saying, "IF you don't agree with the war you're anti-patriotic." I drove in a cab where the cab driver said, "YEah! bring on the war! Let's go." Then there were the anti-war people and OSC's views. That war seemed to have come completely out of left field and I just can't believe that the motives of it were pure.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Unqualified respect is what you give to a king.
Responsibility is what you expect from a president and is what earns him respect.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I do. I regularly criticize the house and senate for their actions, notably on issues of fiscal responsibility.
Also, I am quite specific in my criticisms of Bush by saying "he advocated" "he supported" "he did not support" and the similar with regard to legislative items. And I can very much blame him for advocating things that I consider wrong; just because another group of people did some (typically minor) vetting of the situation doesn't mean the person saying "do it now! do it now!" isn't responsible.
Furthermore, the use of many powers is very much at the Presidential discretion. Congress makes the laws, but this country is run by the executive branch, under the President.
The Justice Department reports to the President through Ashcroft. The EPA reports through whoever's in that office now that the conscientious Whitman has been forced out, the Education department reports to the President through Paige, et cetera. These are the organizations that run this country, and their actions are largely subject to their boss's whim (particularly as he fires anyone who doesn't toe the party line).
The Justice Department would not be using the PATRIOT act for non terrorist crimes (despite administration officials assuring Congressmembers that it would almost entirely be used against terrorist crimes) if the President did not allow it. The EPA would not be peeling back regulations at every step if the President did not allow it (most repeals so far have been one of two things: a bureaucratic change or a presidential order; notice how many fewer presidential orders there are on the subject now that Bush no longer has to use them to force Whitman to comply).
Do the departments have a certain degree of autonomy? Yes. However, it is quite clear what has happened in this administration when that autonomy is exercised beyond what the President likes.
Is it legal for the President to change (for instance) environmental regulations in the way he has? Sure. Must I support him in it? Not a chance.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Further Bokon, what little the Democrats succeed in doing [in the house and senate] is condoned as obstructionist and anti-American people.
Here is why I believe there is such a backlash against President Bush (side note: I always try to call him President Bush, this is his legal and legitimate title. To do less is to criticize the office, not the man).
President Bush was elected without a majority of the votes of the people. He won on a slim electoral vote. He holds the senate by a slim number of voters.
Yet he acts as if he has a supreme mandate from the vast majority of the people. I don't know the numbers, but I believe there are many conservatives out there, but they may make up only 25-30% of the population. Liberals or liberal leaning people make up a similar amount. The majority are centrist. This centrist number was cut down the center during the last election, mainly because President Bush demonstrated many centrist attitudes. Sure he also mentioned some conservative attitudes, but he said he would keep them in check.
After the election those centrist attitudes have slipped away and his Conservative roots are showing.
To make matters worse, the conservative roots that are showing are only partially the social conservatism his backers were expecting. Instead they have been overwhelmingly economic conservativism.
Of the two, the American people will tolerate a social conservative who has high morals. They see Economic Conservatism as a greedy thing, unworthy of their support.
The result is a lot of people voted for a man they thought was slightly conservative, in all the right ways, but mostly moderate. What they find is a man who is greatly conservative in the worst ways.
[ February 11, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Farmgirl, I think that family story has gotten garbled over the years. FDR didn't ask farmers to slaughter calves and dump milk. Dairy farmers were getting screwed by the processing plants and it was costing them money to produce milk. The processing plants were engaged in price fixing and the farmers were starving. So, they decided to strike. In a series of strikes, they dumped their milk. There were other farmers (corn, wheat, etc.) doing the same thing. The dairy farmers did their dumping on the sides of highways and at train crossings (to block the trains.) FDR's solution was to impose a tax on the processing plant and use that tax to pay the farmers not to plant crops or produce milk. (This may be where the family story comes from, if they were being paid not to produce milk, they may have needed to dump milk and slaughter calves in order to get their subsidies from the government.) In 1936, shortly after being enacted, the US SC said it was unconstitutional to tax on industry to pay another, so in 1938 the legislature enacted the same basic bill, but paid for it out of the general tax fund, which the US SC didn't have a problem with.
Today, more than 65 years later, we are still paying artificially inflated dairy prices because of these farm subsidies.
Faith is one thing. Blind, deaf and dumb faith is another.
Oh, and the depression started in 1929. Roosevelt didn't create this program (AAA) till 1936/1938. While there was a slight improvement in the economy in 1937, Roosevelt slashed federal programs/spending and returned the US to a depression. Some economists think the depression ended in 1940, when the economy returned to 1937 levels, but by then, the government had spent 20 billion dollars, created a huge bureaucracy, and millions (over 14%) were still out of work. So, many economists don't believe the depression really ended until 1942, when millions of Americans were in the Armed Forces in WWII and millions more in factories creating the tools of war, lowering the unemployment rate to 4.7%. It has even been acknowledged that many of the FDR policies actually lengthened the depression. And, amusingly, FDR is the one responsible for creating the very policies that the Republicans hate today, including Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and farming subsidies. Roosevelt is the one that started pork barrel spending and the era of big government. While I happen to agree with most of his policies, I don't think that somewhere down the line, it would have been unreasonable to question them. Nearly 30% unemployment and people starving and dying. Something needed to be done. However, once the economy recovered and the war ended (a war with a clearly defined enemy and clearly defined goals,) I don't think it would have been unreasonable for people to go back and look at the policies. Did we still need farm subsidies? Did everyone need to get Social Security? I'm more of a socialist/communist at heart, and I wouldn't mind seeing Social Security benefits only for people under a certain income. Eliminate the Social Security tax and start a low income retirement benefits program, funded from the general tax pool. All I'm saying is that there is a time to accept and time to question. What was happening in this country in 1933-1945 isn't at all comparable to what is happening today. When a third of the country is in danger of starving to death, something needs to be done. When there is a World War, I can see the need for patriotism and sacrifice. Even then though, there was dissent, and rightfully so. Some of the programs (Japanese internment to name one) were wrong then, just as they are wrong now (Guantanamo.) However, when unemployment is 6.5%, the country is filled with illegal aliens working millions of jobs, and the government is hunting down mysterious terrorists and locking up dissenters, I don't think it is inappropriate to question the abilities of the leadership.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
jack
thanks for the info. I do wish that generation of my family was still alive so I could ask them again about that -- I know the story made quite an impression on me as a youngster, but I don't remember the details.
From what you describe, I can see now that perhaps this is why my grandparents, etc. were always very much against government subsidies (if you had to kill your animals in order to get government payoffs, I can see where they would think that is just wrong). We are about the only farmers in our entire area that I know of who have always refused government subsidies for our farm. (part of the reason why we are the poorest farmers around, too). Even when the government offered the CRP program (to turn farmland back into grassland) and we turned our farmland back into grassland -- we didn't apply for CRP funds, because we didn't like them telling us what we can/can't do with our land. (there are all kinds of rules about CRP land)
I believe in letting the free market reign as much as possible - -but suddenly switching to a free market all at once would be devasting to the economy.
I think I will research more on what you say, now that I have that much information to start with in the search.
Farmgirl
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:To make matters worse, the conservative roots that are showing are only partially the social conservatism his backers were expecting. Instead they have been overwhelmingly economic conservativism.
Of the two, the American people will tolerate a social conservative who has high morals. They see Economic Conservatism as a greedy thing, unworthy of their support.
I'd have to disagree. I think economic conservatism is the thing that has been really driving the success of conservatism in the past 10 years, and is probably the best part of the conservative ideology. It is a rejection of the bloated government, high taxation, and Keynesian economics that essentially failed in the late 60's and 70's - and I think on the whole most people do support small government these days.
I think social conservatism, though strongly supported by a minority of Americans, comes back to hurt the conservatives. It's generally intrusive, and I think most centrists generally oppose the notion that the government should be telling us how to act ethically.
I don't see how you could say Bush is an economic conservative, though. It's not economic liberalism because he is cutting taxes fiercely, but at the same time it is not economic conservatism because it is massively expanding the government. Basically, he's just practicing social irresponsibility - taking the most popular (in immediate political terms) parts of both philosophies, by cutting taxes and raising spending on most fronts - and leaving the debt issue for future leaders to deal with.
Truthfully, I think the Bush administration is better classified as authoritarian than conservative, because it supports a big, expensive, intrusive, centralized governemnt - although it's a brand of authoritarianism that wants future Americans to foot the bill, rather than current Americans.
[ February 11, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
FG, one of the reasons I voice my opinions about the Adminsistration (and that goes for ANY Administration, by the way) is that I feel it is very important to exercise one of the key rights of Americans -- free speech. In particular, free speech with regard to our leaders.
I'm not reckless in my comments.
Now, I thought Clinton was immoral in his personal life. And even very probably in his business dealings.
But I found that these concerns did not necessarily translate to mishandling of the government's business. I never felt, for example, like he was arranging things for his own benefit or the benefit of his cronies.
With President Bush, I find he has displayed moral problems (drunk driving, drug use, possibly skipping out on military duty that he agreed to take on). And I think that his business dealings are not all above board. We even have the example of his brother being one of the guys embroiled in the S&L scandal and his father fairly well implicated in Iran/Contra -- suspicious but not completely proven...right?
So, taken on a whole, I feel like G.W. Bush needs watching. They all do, frankly. Anyone who would even WANT the job of President is suspect in the first place as a potential ego maniac and potentially out for personal gain.
That's why we, the people, have the power to review their performance.
True patriotism means loyalty to the country. American patriotism allows us to remain loyal to the country while revolting openly against our leaders.
I'm not even go so far as to revolt against the leadership, openly or not.
I'm simply saying that the man has proven himself to be untrustworthy. And these are in things that ARE the people's business. Not just that he was an idiot who made us look bad in the international community by having sex with an intern in the oval office.
No, this man has set us outside the international community on issues. He has lied to us about something important -- the presence of a clear and immediate threat in a country he then ordered our military to attack. And, his lies are directly related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians and our own soldiers (not to mention an array of people from other countries and other duties).
He has pursued a social agenda that is restrictive and oppressive for no good reason that I can fathom.
He has promoted the Patriot Act (I and II) and continues a drive to turn America into a police state. He has started enlisting truck drivers as "informers." It's all going in the wrong direction.
Then there's the environment, Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq, Energy policy, and a host of other issues that make it clear to me that he is President precisely because he can deliver the goods to his powerful cronies. And that is, perhaps the greatest flaw of all. That he unabashedly claims that what's good for HIS friends is good for all Americans.
So...all told, I feel like it would be completely UNpatriotic to fail to point out that this man is doing things that are NOT in America's best interest, as I understand it.
Rest assured, however, that if America needed a sacrifice from me (other than my silence) for a meaningful goal -- like all pulling together to solve a real problem, I would get behind this president or any other president. Mainly because I'm behind the idea and the ideal and if it's a good one, I don't care who came up with it or whether there's a partisan issue about it. Good ideas that make America better are worth it to me.
Presidents who sell the country to their friends are not.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I would like to point out that, even if the President were a corporate sellout (which I'm not certain that this is his intent/motive at all), he wouldn't be the first President to do so, and I'm not talking recent history. The latter portion of the 19th century was also inundated with cronyism.
I just wanted to say that because people often think what he's doing is unpresidented, but that wouldn't be true (assuming he is a patron for cronyism).
-Bok
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Bob
We'll talk about this on the way to Chicago.....
Farmgirl
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
quote:I don't see how you could say Bush is an economic conservative, though.
Your right tres. He's a neoconservative with an agenda. He and his fellow neo-conservatives' plan includes bankrupting Social Security and Medicare. Haven't you read the Project For A New American Century? They pretty much outline their goals there. Also, you might read [/i]Reflections of a Neoconservative[/i] or The New Messiah.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Jon Boy