What Did President Bush Gain...

I will save everyone the trouble of continuing this thread:

a: there will be many answers with references from people interested in the truth.

b: dbermanmd will not read/understand/acknowledge any of those

c: He will keep asking until a fellow wingnut writes what he likes.

d: He'll acknowledge those.

It was fun for a while because it gave insight into the wingnut mind. After all there isn't much there so I got bored.

Cheers,

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 13 2006, 06:34 AM) [snapback]318877[/snapback]</div>

This post is not to you personally "dbermanmd", I'm simply bouncing off your reply.
This post will make more enemies than friends.. but here goes:
--------------

Maybe what he had to gain is not measured materially, maybe it is measured on levels of pride for his country, dignity as a human being who has a right to live in peace, security that says we should not be in fear of going to work or school, and the the shopping mall, respect to know other countries revere us as a worthy foe not to be reconed with lightly, since past admininstration has earned us the reputation as patsy's that only talk big and do nothing or at best little.. "thats why we got hit", ..... maybe his thought was he was doing the right thing? Could that be?.... He was not the only one who made the decision.... what did they have to gain?


Isn't it amazing we have not been hit again, even though they are salivating over us?
Could that mean present administration may actually be doing something right?... Oh no.. it couldn't be? Could it??

No matter what you do as leader, some will praise you and some will crucify you.

No matter what you say out here on PC is no different... so you might as well speak your mind "respectfully" and not go with the flow and be a wuss. Wusses pick wusses as thier leaders. Courageous men will not settle for less than courageous.

a good question for everyone.... Are you a leader or a follower?... both roles have different characteristics and carry differerent risks?
Another question.... does a follower "know" what it takes to be a leader and therefore is qualified to pick one?


Its nice to have a "leader" as our president for a change instead of a wuss who recons with fear on every decision so does nothing....
Even if he is only a man and not perfect and cannot see into the unknown and past infinity and beyond like our hero buzz lightyear!

I'm starting to think that whoever is not proud of this country and its leaders for the stance we have presented may not be proud of anything? Could that be possible?

True, they bungled some issues and competence was less than expected, but isn't it always?
Has your company to whom you respect, or your city ever done a mass casualty drill?.. Its always a mess.. even when we "know" it coming!


Do we have to drop the nuke to make it simple so their are no mistakes and so we can avoid room for error from man?

And BTW.. when we "DID" drop the nuke, we really didn't know what it would do, how far it would reach, and what would be the lasting effects, but in desperation, we did it anyway. Is that responsible to ourselves and the world for making such an uninformed decision in a crisis?

Sometimes.. you just have to do what you gotta do... and mop up the mess later.
As reckless as it sounds, its the truth.... the next time someone breaks in your home and tries to rape or steal your little girl, lets see what you do!

And now looking back in our rearview mirrow that has 20/20 vision, we praise the administration that ordered the nuclear strike that prevented us all from speaking Japanese to this day.
(nothing against Japanese, they are some of the most noble and resourceful people on the planet)

But we all know in reality, that same decision to drop the nuke could have been a nuclear disaster just as easy.

Not everyone, but most who criticize administration... "not just this one, but any" usually doesn't understand adminstration, nor can they adminstrate their own lives as it is in ruins too.

We all expect perfection, but unfortunately we render ourselves vulnerable by picking a leader... just a man... and not a God.... and we all give our word, our decision making power and our vote to him and his admininstration to order our lives.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just make all the decisions about our lives and not have any leaders?

But I wonder just how many nations like Israel would be destroyed because we had no consideration for anyone except ourselves?... Hence the need for a leader that can and will see the big picture and consider all lives at once.... not just one, or a small faction or group.

If I decide I don't like you "and I have no leader but the right to make my own decisions" and you don't like me "and you have no leader but the right to make your own decisions" what happens?
Again, we are at war!

Many wars are avoided with rules and leadership.
But we can't avoid war forever when our enemy is so full of hate for so long against us. Fear is the only thing that thwarts them off. They have to have more to lose than to gain. Its basic human nature!

Without war there is no fear from our enemies. If we go long enough without war, they will be bound to test us.


I respect any president we will ever have "if" they honestly does what they think is right after consulting with the counsel we have elected.
If a man has the power to do what he thinks is right and he does it not.. what does that make him?.... I know!.. a politician!!!
If he has power to to what he thinks is right and does it "and its not a perfect decision", what does that make him?....... a man!

Just exactly what else are we expecting anyway? Even great generals are men that make mistakes.....

Its our system?... yes it sucks, but its the best in the world to my knowledge...

I guess if you don't like it, you can go elsewhere to greener grass.

And do we know anyone else that could have done a better job?... remember before you answer, that 20/20 vision only works backwards.




By making this discision, I think Bush gained respect as a man and a leader. No, I don't think Bush "planned" it, not I don't think he called up Bin Ladin and organized it, and no I don't think he was looking for an excuse to hit Saddam. This country was totally freaking out! People that didn't believe in God was looking again, non patriotic were mounting flags on thier cars and houses. Imagine that!

I think he did have Saddam in the back of his mind and realized he was an expected foe and maybe even held a healthy fear against him.

We didn't know what was next... who to look at and be afraid of... whether it was safe to send our kids to daycare, or even go shopping... We lived in fear!

The Gorilla warfare tactic of striking and then retreating and hiding renders the victim "us" helpless to defend themselves. But at least we did something!

Many administrations would have talked about it till we were infested with them from within...
We talked about it for 20 years until they finally started thier assault against us without provocation from within?

Just how much longer were we expected to keep talking?

And don't even enter the UN into this conversation.... anyone who thinks they have a clue, or act with any level of integrity really has no sense of anything.


When we go to war.. unfortunately, we don't get to put them in court and try them until they are found guilty, and then decide we need to go to war with them... it would be too late... look at Saddam now...... our fancy justice system has all but released him as it is?

I hate to speak as a cowboy, but sometimes when someone jumps in the ring and hits you a death blow, you don't sit and think about it and ask him what he mean't by it and wait till the boo boo pain goes away..... it will be too late and he will finish you off?


We are so stinkin fortunate that this was only two towers and not a series of dirty nukes that were set off in concert at once.

I'm sure in retrospect, Bin Ladin wished he would have planned better and hit us much much harder while he had the chance.
The next hit may not be so patsy as only two skyscrapers!

We were asleep as in Pearl Harbor and we love voting in leaders who love to sleep.. We don't even want to know how bad it is out there!..... it gives us that nice cozy feeling that all is well and the world is at rest and we are so secure and safe.

On with world peace!!!! WAKE UP!.... without war, there is no peace.....sorry but thats human nature... we take and steal anything we can get away with. Yea, "we" don't want to war with everyone... thats because "we" think we already have it all!

If you disagree and say we really can have a world without guns and war... then release your local police and let them return to civilian jobs and do away with guns in the home and see how much peace you have!
again... WAKE UP..... this is not the age of aquarius!

So now that we all know the world we live in due the present affairs in the news, just who will be your next vote for president, and what will be their character?
And will you look at the state of thier own lives first before you consider letting them to lead yours, or will you wait till they tickle your ears and say what you want to hear and pick them?

I don't want to be the one to answer that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 13 2006, 06:40 AM) [snapback]318881[/snapback]</div>

You absolutely must be jesting. There was a jucy surplus that he was left with when he started. Apresident's dream. He used that PLUS close to one BILLION DOLLARS in deficit spending. And just exactly WHO do you think will have to mop up that mess. He has everything HANDED to him in his life and can't possibly "care" about others more than himself. He doesn't even have the same definition of "care" as you and I do. Not only will the next president have to mop up after the neocons, but the TOTAL POPULATION will be paying 'moping up' after he is LONG gone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 13 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]318909[/snapback]</div>

Just because we haven't been hit again doesn't mean we did the right thing by invading Iraq.

Thank you for inferring that anyone who doesn't support President Bush is a wuss. Nothing like a sweeping generalization to bring people together. Which is more courageous: going along with the status quo or speaking out against something you feel is wrong?

Being proud of our country and being proud of its leaders are mutually exclusive. I love America & all that it stands for. And that includes the right given me by the First Amendment to stand up and call our leaders on the carpet if I don't think they're acting in the best interests of the country.

I agree with you here. The one who “broke into our home” was Osama Bin Laden. It's been 5 years and he's still out there. We abandoned the search for him to go after Iraq.

Again with the sweeping generalizations? You assume someone's life is in ruins because they exercise they're right to say they think the government screwed up? If you're going to make an outrageous statement you'd better have outrageous proof.

We expect neither perfection nor a god. 49% of us didn't give our vote to him and his administration. So, yeah, we're going to bitch if we think they're screwing us. Always has it been, always shall it be. And I sure as hell don't vote for any politician to order my life. I have a Day Runner for that.

I do make decisions about my life. And I decide who I think should be the ones leading the country. And I vote for them. And if I think they're screwing me or the country my grandfathers fought for, I bitch.

Only if we let the dislike escalate to the point of violence.

But you're the final arbiter of whether you think they're honestly doing what they think is right. Just as I'm the final arbiter of whether I think they're honestly doing what they think is right.

And what's with the “America! Love it or leave it!” sentiment? Just because someone doesn't like our leaders & their decisions doesn't mean they “hate America”. Nothing like being inflammatory, I guess.

People who felt Bush was unfairly elected in 2000 were standing with him when we went to Afghanistant to get Bin Ladin & the Taliban. They're the ones who hit us. We lived in fear of Al-Qaeda & Osama Bin Ladin. Give us his head on a platter. Instead, many of us feel Bush & co exploited that fear and used it to get what they wanted ... Saddam.

It all depends on who runs, doesn't it? Since that's 2 years away and no one has declared yet, I can wait.

Again, the political leaders don't lead my life. I do. They do, however, lead my country. And I'll vote for the one that I feel best represents the way I would like to see our country go. And if I think they're screwing us I'll say it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Sep 13 2006, 08:53 AM) [snapback]318940[/snapback]</div>

I agree about the mop up idea... seems every administration spends money it doesn't have... especially in a crisis.... but it also seems he earned alot of that by gaining back alot of the national debt before the war started.

Like I said.. sometimes you just do what you have to do.

this admin is no different... they all spend money they don't have.

I hate taxes and hate to see them get higher, but that too seems to be a falicy.

Funny how we can't afford anything and the economy is on the brinks and so we go to war and spend even more money that we don't have and it refreshes our economy and brings us out of recession.

Its the american way... this is not the first time.

Like I said... I don't think this was orchestrated and premeditated by Bush.... we did not know we were hit till we were hit.

But you can grip and condemn and complain about any action or movement if you want.

It stinks to be leader, simply because you cannot please them all.

When there are differences of wills and opinions, for every winner, that makes one loser present.

 

The fun thing about being a left wing liberal is that the truth moves with your recent memory and your current attitude. It's relative to what you are thinking now, so whatever you are thinking is the truth and the facts that were in play at the time of the event no longer apply.

Right now, it's popular to be against the war, and you really don't need to justify any statement you make, so you just make irrational statements about why Bush pulled the trigger on the war. After a week, you only remember seeing those statements and this is now your truth. No need to recall the facts of the time in which the event occurred.

I only say this because it wasn't long ago right here on this forum this thread was all about Bush doing it for the oil. Doing it for the oil wasn't ever the facts of the time, but it became the thought of the day in the liberal left circle of friends and shortly after became their version of truth for that time. But, here we are months later, the current version of the truth is completely different.

nice...

 

If I remember right, we thought Iraq "and probrably true" was harboring Osama.... we did a slouchy job of letting him slip through since we we warring from hundreds of miles away and thousands of feet in the air, our intelligence on the ground was limited lest we bomb them too.

Nothing wrong in constructive criticizm, .....but not destructive.
You would be no good to a company, nor this country if all you can do is criticize without a solution and give grace for mistakes that were made with the information at hand at that time.
Its not fair to judge the past based on new information they didnt' have.
You can gripe at the umpire all you want at a baseball game, but the vote stands where it stands.
How long will you cry unfair?
Isn't it time to realize the vote is over and there will be no recount again and again?

Part of Loving America is to unify and support it. We have what we have... lets use it the best we can and not be worthless cry babies that only confuse our leaders and cause them to second guess their decisions.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 13 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]318993[/snapback]</div>

If you were referring to me, its at the bottom where I reference "him gaining respect as a leader and a man".

Heros are not planned... they just happen.

How you respond to an unplanned crisis will show whether your a hero or not... if its planned, you know the outcome before you start.

But whenever you must act and you must act now and you really don't know the outcome... thats what makes heros.... Think of war, firemen, policemen, etc.... sometimes leaders have to do these things.

No one has a crystal ball and leaders have to lead even though they don't know the outcome nor the future of thier actions.

All they can do is what they think is "right".

Poor leaders are those that will not or cannot heed the inner voice that tells them what is right and wrong and when to do it. They follow thier fears and the fears of others and so become paralysed and do nothing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 13 2006, 10:09 AM) [snapback]318998[/snapback]</div>

After we hit them, they lost face across the world, they wanted us far more than before.... they wanted to retaliate and show us they were a formidable foe... since they couldn't get us.. they targeted all the other sleeping countries who represented freedom instead.
I disagree with you on this point.

I too would like a different mentality... but not democrat in its present form... they have no one.

We need to toss the whole republican democrat thing and start over and pick new sides.

Once those parties made sense and had a purpose, but now they both are so far off base that neither adequately serves the needs of the country as a whole.

Intelligence is desired rather than war, but when its time for war, intelligence is stupidity if all your enemy will listen to is war.

Look at Israel now.... do you think if they layed down thier arms to talk that their enemies would listen or would they take it as an opportunity to finish them off?

There is a time for war and a time for peace and a time to make love, and it takes wisdom to know the difference.

 

Exactly...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 13 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]318909[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 13 2006, 01:04 PM) [snapback]318993[/snapback]</div>

Unlike sports, there's no award here for being the most offensive player. I really question what PriusChat has to gain by benching intelligent, articulate members in favour of thugs whose only purpose is to draw penalties against the 'other team'.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 13 2006, 01:04 PM) [snapback]318993[/snapback]</div>

I don't think he was necessarily thinking about what he could gain out of it. I just think he took advantage of the prevailing environment of fear to rally support for the invasion. I don't know whether he really thought Iraq was the next "front" in the war on terror, wanted to "finish what his dad started" or just felt like playing with his toys in the sand. And I'll never know for sure. I trust statements of motives from politicians about as much as I trust myself to pick up my Prius and chuck it 100 yards.

And I'm still waiting for the reasons you don't think he had anything to gain. I've asked a few times already. I'd welcome another viewpoint.

Of course I have a right to disagree. As do we all. And I'm perfectly aware that I don't have all the facts. But I'm not the only one without all the facts here. You don't have all the facts, either. Therefore your conclusions are made with incomplete data as well.

Some facts, since that's what we were talking about before: (from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html)
Terrorist attacks under Clinton's watch:

1. 02/26/93: 1st attempt on World Trade Center.
2. 04/19/95: Oklahoma City ... domestic terrorist
3. 11/13/95: Car bomb outside US military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4. 06/25/96: Truck bomb outside military complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia
5. 08/07/98: Truck bombs near US Embassies in Kenya & Tanzania
6. 10/12/00: USS Cole bombing, Yemen

Terrorist attacks under Bush's watch:

1. 09/11/01: WTC, Pentagon, Shanksville
2. 06/14/02: American consulate bombing in Karachi, Pakistan
3. 05/12/03: Suicide bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4. 05/29/04-05/31/04: Kidnapping in Riyadh.
5. 06/11/04-06/19/04: Kidnapping/execution of Paul Johnson, Jr in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
6. 12/06/04: US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
7. 11/09/05: 3 American hotels bombed in Amman, Jordan

By my count, that makes the score Bush 7, Clinton 6. Does that mean I think the measures that have been taken haven't worked? No. Nor does it mean I think Clinton was more effective on terrorism that Bush has been. It just means that Americans have been hit in the 5 years since 9/11.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 13 2006, 02:01 PM) [snapback]319030[/snapback]</div>

Nice try, but unfortunately, you're spinning.... Where does it matter most for most Americans? Right here on U.S. soil. It's certainly not to marginalize the acts, but Americans under threat of terrorism in the mideast is nothing new. Acts of terrorism on U.S. soil is, and is precisely where it's most relevant for the vast majority of Americans who, you know, don't go bopping around the mid-east every other week.... Might was well include terrorist acts under Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc., etc., etc.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 13 2006, 01:38 PM) [snapback]319005[/snapback]</div>

If he slipped through our fingers, it was into Pakistan. As far as the original rationale for going after Iraq, the official position was that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030205-1.html)

So if I don't have an alternate solution, I should keep my my opinion to myself? Often not liking how something is going is how dialogue gets opened and change gets made. Not having a solution doesn't revoke my right to express dissatisfaction with the way things are. If all I have to offer a company or country is criticism, then I'd agree. But just because I'm critical doesn't mean I have nothing else to offer.

At what point did I say the vote was unfair? All I said was 49% of us didn't vote for him. Of course the vote stands. And it was a fair vote. That doesn't mean I'm supposed to walk in lock-step with the majority nor will I let them decide what's best for me without a fight. If you're referring to my comment that mentioned "unfairly elected in 2000", I suggest you re-read it. I never said I thought he was unfairly elected (and, as you rightly pointed out, it doesn't matter anyway). I said people who thought he was unfairly elected were standing behind him when we went after Bin Ladin & the Taliban.

And part of loving America is speaking up when we think she's veering off course. And if that confuses our leaders, maybe they're not cut out for the role. Although I do expect them to second guess a decision every now & then (though not necessarily because of something I say). Second guessing is part of being human. Which, you pointed out previously, they are.

*edited to add hyperlink to Whitehouse news release

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Sep 13 2006, 02:21 PM) [snapback]319037[/snapback]</div>

BZZZZT! Thanks for playing though. We have some lovely parting gifts.

I refer you to dbermanmd's comment (bold face is mine)

Using your premise, that it's only acts on US soil that matter, then what he said is false. We only got hit once under Clinton ... in 1993. But he said we got hit numerous times. That would have to include overseas terrorism. Which means any incidents that happen with Bush in office are fair game. It also makes the claim that we have not been hit in five year false as well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Sep 12 2006, 02:18 PM) [snapback]318576[/snapback]</div>

I hope jayman will not leave PC. While I don't always agree with his politics, he has been a worthy, long-time contributor. I'd like it if anyone who agrees will post to that effect here and now.

There are provocateurs, and there are provocateurs. And there are strange standards (just ask me). But there's only one PC.

Jayman! Jayman! Jayman!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Sep 13 2006, 02:43 PM) [snapback]319046[/snapback]</div>

No, it's called bandwagon Bush hating, attaching, spinning, and contorting, all facts through the anti-Bush lenses...

Just admit it, y'all don't like Bush because you don't like the way he looks...


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Sep 13 2006, 03:12 PM) [snapback]319062[/snapback]</div>

For once I agree with Jack...

I'll go even further and say, whatever happened to the idea of passionate arguments???? Instead, we have to argue the equivalent of bland oatmeal, as it seems to be politically correct to be sensitive to everyone's ears...

IMHO, let the swears fly, let's foster personal bashing, flame wars, photoshop wars of people's moms, that sort of thing... I WANT to get angry, I WANT to tell someone they're donkey dung wrapped in stale whale semen, covered by the rancid vomit of 5 random San Fransisco bums, and the bile of a baby worm!!!!
SEIG.....!!!!

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Sep 13 2006, 12:12 PM) [snapback]319062[/snapback]</div>

I, too, hope Jayman will stay. All viewpoints need to be respected here. PC doesn't have to bend over backwards to allow the right to have its say so the left cannot be accused of "taking over."

OP complained about his questions not being answered. They were answered for four pages. Get a grip, people.