President G W Bush, The Decider: The more he decides the worse things get

Since W has been president the US (and the world) are getting less secure and are facing more problems.

Good moves by W:

After being attacked by Al Queda he declares war on Afghanistan, and goes after the Taliban and Al Queda.

Since the 9/11 attack there have been no other attacks on US property of similar scope by Al Queda. A number of plans that the public knows about have been thwarted. Possibly others that we don't know about have been similarly thwarted.

Then the not so good stuff starts:

Makes up stuff about Iraq and declares war.

US becomes more energy dependant on nations generally unfavorable to US policy and its rising debt total is ever more held by foreign nations.

Each day the nation gets progressively more dependant on outside nations.

Are you better off or worse off since the "decider" became president?



Probably dictates the size of the US military despite various generals wanting larger number of troops.

Doesn't prepare well for the aftermath of the war in Iraq
Doesn't seal the borders with neighbors to Iraq
Declares at some point that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are an axis of evil.

Attacks the country least capable of developing weapons of mass destruction.

Iran is developing nuclear capabilities, has missiles that can reach Europe, is moving toward developing a nuclear bomb...and Bush is unnable to react.

North Korea loads a long range missile reportedly capable of reaching the US West Coast, and we watch.

The Sudan gets taken over by a group supportive of Al Queda. We have done nothing.

Oil prices shoot through the roof, in part because of limits on Iraqi production of oil. Ever more money goes into oil producing nations...most of which are not good friends to the US.

Venezuela, a big producer of oil is being governed by a marxist oriented guy who favors Castro over the West.

US government, and state governments fail miserably in dealing with Hurricane Katrina. The long term response has been slow, limited, and rife with problems. At least twice, displaced people were told housing supports were to be ended. US (FEMA) does better with next hurricane that hits Texas/Louisiana border!!!

Anyone who disagrees or questions any of Bush's plans and actions is described as someone who wants to "cut and run" unpatriotic, chicken, treachorous, etc. Meanwhile Bush's administration reveals the secret identity of a CIA employee, ostensibly because her husband disagreed with Administration claims. Creates big morale problems amongst CIA employees and similar government employees tasked with working on behalf of government security.

 

But I'm the decider, and I decide what's best!

 

Yet for some strange reason, the US has been attacked less than during the previous administration whose policy was to do nothing.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
bush lied, people died

Yep, just made it up out of the blue!

The US has always been energy dependant on nations generally unfavorable to the US. No news there.

Yet no examples are given.

Far better off. North Korea and Iraq are prime examples of how appeasement doesn't work.

Probably eats babies too

Liberals are always armchair quarterbacks. Hindsight is the best they can offer.

A country the size of California, yet some think the borders could be "sealed."

And was right on target.

Yet the weapons inspectors noted major finds of equipment, supplies and programs just waiting to be restarted.

One can appreciate the irony here. If he did react on impulse, the same people would perpetuate the lie he went unilateraly and didn't give diplomacy a chance. 12 years of diplomacy wasn't enough, but six months of diplomacy is too much. Makes sense!

Yep, missle defense systems don't mean anything and CNN announced the "fireworks" show ahead of time so everyone could wake up and watch the full coverage of it.

No qualms there, an area I've long been disappointed with. Yet, while some use that as an alternative of something to could be done, the same people would be crying "bush lied, people died"

Yet moonbats say the war is about oil and lining the pockets of oil execs. No oil from Iraq, but we're there taking their oil. Cognitive dissonance. Oil prices have always gone up during my lifetime. Perhaps there was a time in history when oil prices consistently went down for years at a time.

Yep, it's Bush's fault. Just ask Cindy Shenut.

Yet their reaction times to the single largest catastrophe in US history was better than usual. Bush took a fishing expedition into the gulf, grabbed his huevos and declared "let there be a big ol' hurricane here!" Of course, FEMA does well with other hurricanes. Lessons were learned, but it was all Bush's fault those school busses sat in a parking lot, unused, while a teenager hijacks a school bus to save people.

Nope, questioning is fine. People tend to get labled with these names because that is exactly what they are doing. They want to cut and run, like Kerry and Murtha, they support treason when the NYT sells out America by giving away details of a secret legal program with Congressional oversight because BDS overpowers common sense. Oh, but we're embarrassed by what we support, so let's paint ourselves victims by saying "just because we disagree, we're labled." Right!

Source please?

Full blown BDS is a sad thing to witness.

 

gtech, you do know this is a webmaster forum, right?

If only you could wave your hand and say, "These are not the lies you are looking for".

 

I didn't realize the original post, made in the Politics & Religion section, was about webmastering

Nothing gets past you, eh?

 

GTech:

Why did we go into Iraq? What were the reasons for the war?

Why are we there now? What are we trying to accomplish?

What are our long range plans there? Do we plan to stay forever? Do we wish to move on and out of Iraq? What will determine this if at all?

You seem to be clued in directly into the administration. Maybe you can enlighten others of us.

 

The answer to that question changes every week... they rotate from answer to answer until the majority see through each of the lies

 

New questions! I'll bite!

You should ask Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Unca Ted (pass the bourbon please) Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Wesley Clark, William Cohen, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, John Rockefeller, John Edwards, and many others. Apparently they knew.

Covered many times, but why pretend to care?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

Nothing from my post above you wanted to cover?

 

GTech:

What about these questions:

 

What about them? Debating isn't about lobbing out a half dozen or more questions when someone responds to your post and expecting the other party to answer them all. That's lazy.

Do your part and don't be lazy. I put forth effort to counter your original claims and when you had no response, you lob out questions to put all the effort on me.

 

Why can't you say something like that to any leftist such as earlperl or yo-yo?

 

GTech must be a hairy 51 years old redneck who still lives with her mom.

 

I gave you a red for that

 

Okay:

This is for all you boys and girls that are like stepford wives bush lovers.

BTW, when Bush declared war against Iraq I grudgingly supported him and the effort, buying into the danger aspect, the thread to weapons of mass destruction, and a few of the other arguments. I thought the arguments that Saddam was in contact with Al Queda were never well substantiated and off base.

One thing that is tough is to carry out a debate with folks that forever attack one side or the other. It debased real debate. It demeans the efforts of soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq and elsewhere.

but don't trust me on that, take the words of a very loyal active Republican.

Before Congress in June of this year Chuck Hagel said the following relative to the attack dog comments that the administration and its stepford like followers like to use:

In 2004 Senator Hagel earned 100% voting records from two different Conservative groups, The Christian Coalition and the Eagle Forum.

He is anything but a liberal democrat.

Oops Gtech, he actually fought in a war as did Kerry and Murtha.

Guess that makes him a treasonous cut and run cowardly, non tough guy, must be against the best interests of the US type of guy. He also won a couple of medals.

That probably really makes him a wimpy guy.

As polls show American belief in Bush has plummeted over the last couple of years.

It's not because the war in Iraq is going badly. Americans are strongly patriotic and were strongly united following 9/11.

Partisan attacks on anyone and everyone who disagrees with the President as being unpatriotic rings hollow.

People continue how we got into this war, why we did it, and the what we are doing there now, let alone how it is impacting the military and our effectiveness around the world. People question the very reasons we went there when a growing number of significant sources point out that the administration has not been honest with its reasons for going into Iraq and dealing with on going conditions.

Frankly I'm very pro America. I have some views that are toward the right and some toward the left.

As soon as one side describes all who disagree as traitors treasonous etc. then the debate stops and the partisinship grows.

Currently the people in power are not doing too well. But that's not just me that appears to be the view of a majority of the US according to polls from every source possible.

I live in the DC area. I get to meet a lot of young men and women in the military. They hold many many views. Their views are probably as divergent as GTech's and mine.

Today I met a Marine who is nearing the end of his four year stint. He volunteered to go into the infantry. He said he wanted to shoot up bad guys. He must have volunteered into 2002 somewhat after 9/11 and when he was old enough to enlist.

He was chosen for special service and retrained. He also suffered an injury during training that ate up some of his enlistment time. He is less than 6 months from ending his tour. He wants to get out. He met another guy at my business who just ended his tour in the army. The marine congratulated him. The Marine doesn't want to go to Iraq and because he is on short duty he evidently isn't.

The Marine had a prestigious position. During these years he changed his perspective.

So GTech. Does that make him a cut and run cowardly treasonous so and so.

Things aren't going well for the US vis a vis the rest of the world and growing threats of terrorism and rogue dangersous states that are gaining more dangerous weapons since Bush took over.

Yup I'd lilke to see new blood in The White House.



Do I have better answers? No. These are tough problems. It just appears to me that this administration is just about f*cking up everything it touches or alternatively doesn't touch.

BTW; vis a vis North Korea. Clinton was pretty close to an agreement to forestall their further development of weapons, missiles, nukes, etc. It just missed. They negotiated directly. When you get that close you try again. Bush went for 6 party talks...and the N Koreans have pulled out. They are definite mad men but that doesn't mean you don't work at it hard. It especially means you work at it hard because they have thousands of tubes/bombs/missiles aimed at South Korea and already have the capacity to hit Japan with missiles.

Anyways fellas. I'm sure you will find something treasonous and traiterous in what I say.

But on top of that if you don't agree with them you are branded a coward, treasonous, etc.

 

You forgot, on top of spying on our phone calls, they will start watching us online now too. They will include back doors into our routers and hardware. Yes, they are doing a real bang up job.

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6091942.html?part=rss&tag=6091942&subj=news

 

Interesting disclaimer. Though the ties between saddam and al qaida are strong and have become stronger since the release of declassified documents months ago.

You mean like when someone starts a post attacking the President and deliberately lying by saying "Makes up stuff about Iraq and declares war." or rambling on with "Each day the nation gets progressively more dependant on outside nations." by refusing to provide an example, or deliberately lying again with "Meanwhile Bush's administration reveals the secret identity of a CIA employee, ostensibly because her husband disagreed with Administration claims."

How do you reconcile a persistent hatred for Bush, which you have more than displayed, on one hand, then try to turn it around by saying "but, but, but we just want to ask questions." On one hand, you attack the President and fabricate deliberate lies, and then you want to invoke Hagel, a "controversial" Republican, at best, to compare what you are doing with his words. Not even close, Earlpearl!

And that's fine, I don't have an issue with what he's saying, despite many think he's more of a democrat in the Republican party. The issue I have, is pretending like you are trying to do what Hagels words suggest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Did he sell his country out like John Kerry? Did he put himself in for medals for self-inflicted wounds like Kerry did? Did he have his Silver Star award rewritten to include a "v" cluster, which doesn't exist? Did he deliberately try to bring discredit to his country by claiming he spent "Christmas in Cambodia" and making speeches about how it was "seared, seared in my mind," only to have it proven that he was lying all these years? Did he sell out the Marines like Murtha did, but convicting them before an investigation was barely underway? Murtha and Kerry ARE treasonous, by their actions, not by their party affiliation.

No, his actions, if like those of Kerry and Murtha, would. But I've seen nothing to suggest Hagel sold his country out. Kerry and Murtha continue to do it on a daily basis. *That's* what makes them treasonous.

Right, but that's not what is happening. You wished it were, but it's not, and suggesting so, once again, shows a lack of integrity. You've made it clear, you do not like Bush. You attack him (and that's ok), you lie about him, you ignore truths because they are less important than the message of hate. And then you want to wrap yourself in a Republican's comments to suggest that "all we're trying to do is ask some questions." Wrong!

No one is being labeled unpatriotic for asking questions. John Kerry is a traitor and I presented factual arguments to suggest why I and many others come to that conclusion. John Murtha is bordering, if not already crossed the line, treasonous for how he sold out his fellow marines by convicting them in public when the initial investigation had barely just began. These are not actions of asking questions, as you would have us believe. These are actions of Democrats and they are shameful.

Don't take my word for it, Abraham Lincoln knew exactly what sort of harm people like Murtha cause:

Incorrect. We wished people questioned. In fact, what they do is attack. When democrat after democrat in the Senate step forward to proclaim "Bush lied about WMD," with records like these, long before Bush was ever in office. People lie, like above, when saying "Makes up stuff about Iraq and declares war." or rambling on with "Each day the nation gets progressively more dependant on outside nations." by refusing to provide an example, or deliberately lying again with "Meanwhile Bush's administration reveals the secret identity of a CIA employee, ostensibly because her husband disagreed with Administration claims." These are not questions, they are straight forward lies with no foundation.

Another strawman argument. Saying that "one side describes all who disagree as traitors..." to knock down the argument, yet no one is doing such.

Depends on the poll and what time frame: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-13-poll-results_x.htm

I submit that even when his poll numbers were in the 50s, some of the very same people here espoused that "poll numbers don't matter." And in part, they are right, because the polls said Kerry would win and he didn't. This, despite a five year media campaign against Bush in every way imagineable.

Did he sell out his country like John Kerry? Did he sell out his fellow soldiers by claiming they were guilty before an initial investigation barely began? I suspect not. I value, very highly, the service of soldiers and respect dissenting views. I do not value people who served, and subsequently sell our country out.

But then you are not the first one here to prey upon the military to make a point, nor suggest that just because they have dissenting views, that I would not respect their points of view.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, take a look at the following post where gworld (who absolutely hates the military and is usually the first to pile on soldiers) tried to use a General's words for his political advantage:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=74335

and more importantly, the response I gave then, is the same response I give to you above:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=797777&postcount=13

As you can see, your questioning of if I call those who serve treasonous for having opposing views has no basis. Kerry and Murtha both have valid reasons why I suggest they are.

Now isn't the time to rewrite history about the appeasement strategy of Clinton/Carter regarding North Korea. Carter came back from a direct meeting with Kim, waiving a peace flag and claiming Kim agreed to stop his nuclear program. In exchange for this (appeasement), NK received hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, oil as well as a nuclear reactor. When all was said and done, NK had nuclear weapons, starved it's people while buying nuclear technology from China and instead of confronting a potential threat (hint, Iran) at the time, we now have to clean up their mess. The only good thing that came out of it, was Jimmy Carter received a Nobel Peace award in part for appeasement to NK that failed.

 

Earl, I don't have time to read all your stupid post because you include general broad opinions that Gtech has already dunked a long time ago.

Guess, what.. I was truely against the war when it happened. A few years later I watched a movie by Micheal More called Fahrenheit 9/11. I got interested so I started to read a book by him called "Dude, Where's my country?". After reading 17 or 20 pages, I stopped and thought, what a completly idiot. So I did my own research about the movie and concluded that there was a lot of errors in the movie right from the beginning.

Since, then.. I've been a Bush supporter.

 

see dead horse.
beat said dead horse.
die horse die.

 

That would be worse under a democrat administration, so what?

-- It's time to streighten out things in order to uphold the originality of your constitution, because if this goes washed away, the knocked credibility of America will take a turn to its worst.

 

Hey, I'm with stupid!