Bush foreign policy review

[Skyboss]

George Bush is no Ronald Reagan.

Bush has failed to uphold his oath of office, he has failed to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Today, any of us pilots can be denied our Certificates and thrown in jail, without due process and without probable cause under the Homeland Security Act. Mere suspicion, without any objective measure, or evidence, is all it takes.

Bush is wrong and he is against the basic liberties that our great Nation was founded on. Eventually our Courts will overturn the most heinous parts of the Homeland Security Act. But in the meantime, I miss Clinton. Sure he was an oaf without any moral compass, but he was ineffective.

Blah Blah Blah... Blah Blah... Blah Blah Blah....




Blah.

If you miss Clinton, you need some help. Don't come off like such a reactionary liberal. It's pathetic.

 

[rettofly]

..... Economy sucks, jobs are gone.....

If I understand correctly, the current unemployment rate is 5.6 %, and this (according to the Democrats) is a terrible thing.

How is this terrible when the 6.4 % rate during Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign was spun as an indication of what a great job his administration was doing in "creating jobs"?

The President and the government DO NOT create jobs! Regulatory and fiscal policies established by the administration create a situation that will encourage or discourage job creation by BUSINESS.

Robert Reich, Labor Secretary under Clinton, who cannot be accused of being a fan of Bush's policies, recently said on national television that the employment picture looks exceptionally good over the next 18 months. He also took the time to debunk the Democrats' rhetorical outcry over "sending jobs overseas".

Intellectual honesty! What a concept!

 

[Snoopy58]

Finally, we have had intelligence failures of greater magnitude - Pearl Harbor and JFK's "missile gap" come readily to mind.

Really minor point, but JFK's "missile gap" wasn't an intelligence failure. He ran against Ike using "the missile gap" as a slogan to attack Ike as being weak on defense. Ike, having access to satellite photos, knew that there actually was no such thing, but the intel was too sensitive to put out into the public forum, so he wasn't able to respond to what was, unknowingly, a false accusation by JFK.

JFK won the election, came into office, and found out that there was, in fact, no missile gap. Of course, he couldn't very well turn around & admit his mistake.

But I agree that there are plenty of far worse intelligence failures than the question of WMD's in Iraq. (And, such intel failures are hardly limited to the US -- virtually EVERY nation with a sophisticated intel community also thought Iraq possessed WMD's.) It's just that "the missile gap" wasn't one of them.

 

[Mr. Cole]

I usually try to stay out of political conversations, but in each post that I've read by Merik he has pointed out the shortcomings of both Clinton and Bush and I think has been very objective. But then in the next post someone accuses him of gushing over Clinton and bashing Bush. I know that he/she can speak for themself, but I'm amazed that people selectively ignore the objectivity in the post because then they can't accuse him of being a Clinton lover and give him a proper bashing.

Dave

 

[Dubya]

Read it again Mr Cole.

If you think his posts resemble anything close to objectivity...well....just read it again...please.


W

 

[Mr. Cole]

On this thread it appears that lack of objectivity equates to anyone bashing Bush. From what I can tell, Merik pointed out the shortcomings of both men and I didn't walk away with the impression that he gave one more credibility than the other. After pointing out his disdain for both, which shows me that he put political affiliation aside, he made his case against the current President.

There are many people that voted for Bush that feel betrayed by him. But if those people speak ill of Bush they're suddenly brainwashed traitors, end of discussion. There is no middle ground. Someone that had high hopes for the administration at one point and that may have been an ally at the beginning of this administration's tenure is now an enemy. Maybe the problem lies not with the voter, but with this administration. My opinion is that neither candidate gives two cents about the common man.

Dave

 

[merikeyegro]

[Bush] lied about WMD (I don't give a $hit what you say - he KNEW that he was wrong because the CIA told him the info was bad) to knock off Hussein. Yes, Hussein is an A-hole and should die a slow, painful death. JUST TELL US THAT WAS YOUR REASONING. Friggin' lies are just intolerable, especially considering his attacks against Clinton during the election in 2000. Yes, Clinton got caught in a bold-faced lie. He got busted. He fessed up...finally. GWB railed against that for political gain...and rightly so. I think that GWB's opponent this year should rail against him for the same reasons. Bush is a liar, just like Clinton. He just doesn't get BJs in the Oval Office...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check my comments about BOTH presidents on my previous post. They both lied. I hate lying politicians. Clinton was no better than Bush. Both lied. One guy lied about a BJ. Another lied to the American people about impending nuclear winter to send thousands of men and women to die to settle a score that his daddy fouled up

I want to thank whoever defended me above. I think Clinton was a sleaze in a different way than Bush is a sleaze. They BOTH lied. They BOTH lack integrity. The ONLY DIFFERENCE is that one lied to justify WAR, the other lied to cover up a BJ that he got from an intern so his wife wouldn't find out. Which is worse? I'll let you figure that out, since some on this board think they have a better idea of what constitutes objectivity than I do.

If I understand correctly, the current unemployment rate is 5.6 %, and this (according to the Democrats) is a terrible thing...How is this terrible when the 6.4 % rate during Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign was spun as an indication of what a great job his administration was doing in "creating jobs"?

Well, for starters, Clinton took over with an unemployment rate above 6.4% (7.3%, to be exact). Bush took over with a 4.0% and now has a 5.6%. Last I checked, that's a net job LOSS.

Unemployment Numbers: January of each year

1988 - 5.7%
1989 - 5.4
1990 - 5.4 - Bush I
1991 - 6.4
---------------------------------
1992 - 7.3
1993 - 7.3
1994 - 6.6
1995 - 5.6
1996 - 5.6 - Clinton
1997 - 5.3
1998 - 4.6
1999 - 4.3
2000 - 4.0
---------------------------------
2001 - 4.2
2002 - 5.6
2003 - 5.8 - Bush II
2004 - 5.6

I understand that the first year of each president is the leftover from the previous. GWB also got hit w/9-11. I would argue that the effects of 9-11 (outside of the Gestapo-controlled aviation industry) are moot at this point in time.

Check out the site where I got these numbers. The graph is pretty good, too. Click here http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

You can check a bunch of numbers by just selecting the dates, the graphing option, and clicking "Go." The source for this is the Dept of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov).

Anyway, Clinton had every right to tout his job record, as he ACTUALLY SHOWED A DECREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT. Bush is asking Americans to take his record on faith, although he has not created one single job since he took office. His father didn't, either. Bush II is saying, simply, that tax cuts create jobs. That may be true, if they're given to the right people. However, just cutting the top marginal tax rate will not necessarily cause the business owner to hire more people. Just gives him a bigger house and a new car.

Again, thanks for the defense...

 

[Snoopy58]

Still standing by your "nuclear winter" and "knew 9/11 was coming" remarks?

Doesn't it register that not only the US intelligence community (dating from the Clinton admin) but all the other intel communities in the western world all believed exactly the same thing about Iraq's WMD's that Bush told us? EVERYBODY believed they had WMD's. And even this week George Tenant is talking about how we still need to find out what exactly did happen to the stockpiles -- destroyed, hidden, exported, what? As opposed to simply "concluding" that "there weren't any."

And, no, mindless Bush-bashing doesn't become any less mindless when somebody throws in the "oh, sure, Clinton was a lying scumbag" line at the end.

Nuclear Winter, anyone?

 

[Dubya]

Toe to Toe?

Come on meri...you are thanking someone who can't see through your obvious liberal bs?

Nuclear winter???? Please explain.

Clinton lied UNDER OATH to a fed. grand jury. That is a fact. Recorded. Documented.

Please give me the evidence that Bush lied about Iraq. EVIDENCE. Not your mindless conjecture of what you think he knew or didn't know.



Bush said he was going after the source of terrorism...wherever that may take us...at whatever the cost...and he has done just that. Lies you say? If you would take off your gloves for a moment and go back and re-read the original post on this thread, his actions will be clear to you.

Maybe you still believe that there were no terrorist elements in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lybia. That is just foolishness.

Maybe you actually believe the President controls the economy, and the unemployment rate.

Maybe you really actually believe that the liberals that pander to your shallow thoughts don't drive big cars or live in big houses or own shares in big corporations. They are "every man". Puuuleease.

Maybe you really do believe that 9/11 had no effect on the economy.

You may be able to pass off your attack on Bush by slipping in a couple "Clinton lied too".....but AGAIN...you try and justify his lies in order to make Bush look worse. It works only for the shallow minded who can't think for themselves.

They say and empty can rattles the most. The sound of your own voice must soothe you.

W

 

[Mr. Cole]

Dubya,

I can see through the liberal bs, just as I can see through the conservative bs. What I find interesting in your post below is that you challenge the belief held by others that the President controls the economy and unemployment. But if that were not the case, then why all the hoopla about cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and to ignite economic growth if there is no impact? The President and Congress has an impact on the economy through fiscal policy just as the Fed has an impact through monetary policy. So while he has no direct control over the 'exact 'value of unemployment or the 'exact' value of other economic indicators, you better believe that his policies have a direct impact.

Did 9/11 have an impact on the economy? Sure it did. But most people in the Bush camp now trumpet the recent economic performance and would like to attribute it to the tax cuts. I think that's BS because the people that received the greatest benefit from those cuts could still afford to do whatever they wanted as money is not an object for them. The high productivity numbers show that employers are squeezing more out of the employees they have, not hiring more or necessarily paying the current employees more. The average working stiff received a tax cut on the order of a few hundred dollars, which they will eventually pay back in higher state or local taxes, including property taxes.

The rise in the stock market is an indicator of increased corporate profit and better performance, you can't deny that. But what you can deny is that that growth has come about by the creation of more jobs.

Dave

 

[Dubya]

Quote:

"But what you can deny is that that growth has come about by the creation of more jobs."

Dave...jobs growth comes AFTER the growth in the economy...job growth does not SPUR the economy. The economy is obviously affected by policy...and this administrations policy has been to cut taxes, lower interest rates and encourage investment. It is a historical fact that jobs are the LAST part of a full economic recovery. It is all cyclic. Stop looking to the President to find blame. You obviously can't see through meri's angry words to see the source of his rant.

W

 

[Mr. Cole]

Actually, I've studied economics in some detail so I understand to an extent what's going on. First, the interest rates are controlled by the Fed and not the administration directly. And hopefully the Fed is an apolitical entity, but we know how that works at times. Interest rates have fallen to the level they have because of the overall weakness in the economy. Lower interest rates make it cheaper for companies to make large capital investments, thereby stimulating the economy, hopefully. At least that's what should happen in theory. Even after the rates were lowered to unprecedented levels the economy still remained sluggish because companies were scared to make any investments with all the uncertainty. Regular investors did the same by staying back.

The economy remained soft and the rates went lower. Only now are companies starting to invest again. In addtion, if you're looking for somewhere to place your money, the low rates make bonds less attractive than stocks. The boom in the housing market over the past few years has to do with low rates. Real estate tend to be anti-cyclical with the broader economy because during a booming economy, most people would rather invest in stocks. Because there are only limited dollars out there, supply and demand dictates that interest rates have to be higher. This is a typically a bad sign for real estate. Jost the opposite happens when the economy is in the crapper and mortage rates are driven lower.

What most people fail to realize is that while the rates are low, the price of houses have gone up as sellers factor the lower financing cost into the price. There is no free lunch and if the government continues to cut taxes without reducing spending, those small tax cuts will be eaten somewhere else.

As far as job growth, I know it's a lagging indicator. But rarely has it been this lagging.

Dave

 

[deadstick]

from another message board...

Letter To The Editor(Durham NC)

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us,resident Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

 

[merikeyegro]

Dubya -

Hey, dude. Wake up. I said that 9-11 effects are NOW moot. No doubt that 9-11 knocked the economy into a tailspin in 2001. It recovered...sort of. The companies are making money, not me. That's why, as Mr. Cole pointed out, the stock market is up. A high Dow Jones does not necessarily mean a good economy. The X factor is outsourcing

Last post -

I find it funny how, when you mention the previous wars, you say the word "attacked." When you mention Iraq and GWB, you use the word "liberate." Hmmm...where's the BS meter, Dubya? No doubt that Dems got us into Vietnam. Quagmire. Bush got us into Iraq. Quagmire? Maybe...time will tell. I would agree that this war was the tail wagging the dog, however. No true terrorists (outside of our control, strangely - Ansar al-Islam in Kurdish Northern Iraq) in Iraq until we invade, get rid of Hussein, and now Iraq is exploding left and right. Are we safer? I would argue not.

OK, so let's recap. I point out some BS from the conservative side, use some logic with economics, and point out some well-documented facts about Iraq. Let's see how badly I get flamed.

Bring it on, Hannity...

 

[Snoopy58]

No, meri, you get flamed because you post rocket science like Bush "knew 9/11 was coming but did ___ to stop it" and "lied to the American people about impending nuclear winter to send thousands of men and women to die" in Iraq.

THAT is why we all think you're sharp has a bowling ball and almost as bright as a box of rocks.

 

[merikeyegro]

Well, "we all" are just the world's best and brightest, spouting your Fox News rhetoric, so I guess I'm outgunned. I digress...

I really wonder who "we all" are, anyway. Go back to your archive of news clips (I'm sure you've already done this, proving your most-enviable intelligence and logic) and listen to Bush speeches about the 45-minutes-to-launch bio and chem weapons, along with the super-secret "nucular" capability of the world's most heinous dictator, that was told to be ready for launch. That's where I speak of "nuclear winter." Surely you can't think that I wasn't being just A LITTLE SARCASTIC. My Lord. Lighten up.

As well, if you would have read my posts (as you clearly have not), you would see that I mentioned that Bush II was warned of an impending attack on the US homeland, was encouraged to create a Nat'l Homeland Security Agency, and told that hijacking airliners was in the works with terror groups. Please, please, PLEASE do me a favor and read the report from the Hart-Rudman Commission on national security. Read the first 10 pages and you'll see what I am talking about. The report was published in February 2001 - www.nssg.gov. No, Bush was not told that the terror attacks were going to happen at 0845 on 9-11-01. I don't think anyone is that good, not even GWB However, he was warned - by that report and by intel briefings from the Clinton Administration (whom you say did nothing to stop terrorism - look at the budgets for anti-terror activities) all the way until August 2001. So, to say that he wasn't aware of something in the works is to disregard reported (in many sources) facts and to simply spout rhetoric and propaganda.

Those who can't lead resort to coercive power and intimidation. You can't inspire me, thus you need to call me names and attempt to discredit and intimidate me while not presenting A SINGLE FACT TO THE CONTRARY. Sorry, I'm not scared so easily.

Good night, sir...