Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
President Bush
Does the rest of the world dislike Pres. Bush as much as we do here in the United States?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ldel1969. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
So... OK, this thread has about run its course, but I finally couldn't resist any longer. Let's see... where to start. So, who are the aides who tell Bush what to do? It's widely accepted that he has, with good advice from a wide variety of people, formulated all of the policies that he has brought to bear on either foreign or domestic problems. His tax cut bills, successfully passed by both houses of Congress are creditied, almost solely, for the superb state of the U.S. economy. He really has only a few propsals defeated, including one for overhaul of the Social Security System, which everyone agrees badly needs overhaul, but no one has the guts to pursue against the "Grey Army" of seniors arrayed against it.
Lest we forget, an event on 9/11 launched the retaliation in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seems all of the intelligence agencies of all countries, including Russia, agreed that Iraq possessed WMD. Fact is, they had already used them against their own people. Best estimates are that Hussein killed over 400,000 of his own people, men, women and children.
One question I have that I really can't figure out is; if Saddam didn't have anything to hide and knew, as he certainly did, that non-divulgence of the information about WMD would invite destruction, why did he deny the U.N.'s insepctors free and unfettered access to all sites? What are we to make of the satellite photos and on-the-ground intelligence reports of the convoys of trucks rumbling between Iraq and Syria in the months preceding our invasion?
Contd.
Contd.
If we invaded for the oil... why is the new Democratically elected Iraqi governement in charge of their own oil while our cost for crude has continued to escalate.
Fact is, the Democrats in the U.S. had never been out of power for near 60 years, and this man is driving them crazy. The Dems have a firm alliance with the "Blame America First" press and their socialist agenda is as plain as egg on their face.
Reagan, harmless! Ask Gorbachev how harmless he was. Germany is united and the wall is gone and the Ruskies are a second or third rate power, all due to Ronaldus Maximus astute and powerfully lead foreign policies.
Bush is his own man and with that fallibilities... but the pure unadulterated, personal hatred of him by the Democrats and others is unprecedented in American politics...
Rant over...
with all respect Clanad, it seems to me Bush is the first person Democrats have ever hated. They put up quite cheerfully with Reagan and Bush Snr. They didn't like Nixon much but (as far as a foreigner can tell) their dislike was focused on his actions rather than on the man himself. Republicans on the other hand have routinely been reluctant to accept the authority of Democratic presidents - the astonishing pursuit of Clinton by Kenneth Starr, for instance, or the disdain for Jimmy Carter come to mind.
Fair observation, jno... the difference being is that with all the Republican presidents you list, the congress was still controlled by the Democrats, so they didn't find themselves totally sans power. Additionally, the majority (I don't have the numbers at hand) of U.S. State governors are Republican. Even with Clinton, there wasn't the visceral hate displayed towards this President... once the Special Prosecutor (Ken Starr) was appointed by the congress (a law, by the way, promulgated and passed by the Democrats at the time of Watergate) the process was out of the control of the Congress, just as it had been designed. Even with the image of Clinton standing before the cameras pointing his finger at America and lying, the investigation was never about that aspect. It centered his lying to congress, for which he was impeached but not convicted... on the strength of numbers of the Democrat controlled House...
The original question in this thread was posed, I believe, by an American (at least according to the wording) and my response is in that vein. Fact is, a study of the real, unvarnished truth about this President reveals a far different picture from that espoused by the liberal press... By the way, Kennedy and even to an extent Johnson and Carter enjoyed a meek and mild Republican minority during their terms. Carter, of course, left us with the greatest rate of inflation in U.S. history and interest rates for loans at near 20 percent. Now, there was a total dork! But no one hated him...or wished to destroy him personally...
Clanad, my guess is that all presidents (except probably Carter) lie; Reagan's special field, as I recall, was Iran/Contras. It baffles me slightly that Clinton, who lied about his private life, gets worse press than Nixon and Reagan, both of whose lies had to do with political actions. My personal feeling - and this may not accord with American jurisprudence - is that Clinton was entitled to tell people investigating his private life to bug off, but that the others lied about serious matters of state. As for Bush Jnr (just to return to Ldel's question), I'd personally trust him more than, say, Blair; but it won't amaze me if future historians prove me wrong on this.
The curious thing is, that with the Iraq war, it was Tony Blair that manufactured the lies to build a case to go to war, Britons didn't want it, but Blair still said we all backed Bush when quite a lot of us didn't. I more or less knew there were no WMD's in Iraq, Saddam is smarter than you guys think!
The impression that was given over here in the UK was that it was all the rednecks and potato farmers and evangelists that voted Bush back in, the 'Intelligent' states, such as New York, Florida, California and so on voted for Kerry, is there any truth in that? For what its worth though, I still think that America is a better country than Britain, You might have a dork like Bush running the show, but believe me he's not a patch on that insufferable pipsqueak a*sehole Tony Blair and that bent, arrogant government of his which we have to pay for and put up with.
Just a correction for madein - Florida actually voted for Bush in the last election. Not that you'd describe Florida as intelligent, remember it was some of the elderly voters of Florida who wanted to vote for Gore and miss-voted which meant 8 years of Bush!!! By the way Clannad, assuming that you're American, the question wasn't really yours to answer. Also its not only the liberal press who tarnish GWB but many on the far right who've been opposing recently him, eg Supreme Ct noms and the whole arab owned ports debacle.
Having reread some of Clannad's answers - you must be be one of the 36% who still approve of Bush!! Also do you really believe Bush when he tried to link Iraq to 9/11? And as for the "superb state of the US economy" well check the deficit and the latest exchange rates. I think you'll find the economy did much better under Clinton and with a surplus. PS the answer to the Q is YES.
Same old canard... Clinton left such a nice surplus... some $70 billion. After the largest tax increase in the history of the country. Then something happened... think it was called 9/11. To date we've spent some $400 billion on Afghansistan and Iraq. Should we have not? I (and a lot of Democrats) shudder to think where we'd be with Gore or Kerry as President during the crisis. The deficit is smaller than projected because of the war and yet we have record high employment.
The Al Qaeda/Iraq/Saddam link wasn't the brainchild of Bush... Are Al Qaeda's links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection. (Excerpts from The Weekly Standard, October, 2003). For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager. Iraq also admitted to having a $199,000 contract with al Shifa for goods under the oil-for-food program. The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant's main gate.
Contd.
Contd.
The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadly nerve agent VX.
A senior intelligence official who briefed reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. "Iraq is the only country we're aware of," the official said.
That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The Clinton administration heavily emphasized the Iraq link to justify its 1998 strikes against al Qaeda.
The 9/11 Commission Report states the same connection as well as Saddam/Al Zawhiri known connection.
And here are but a few of the prominent Democrats who stated unequivocally there was WMD in Iraq. Were they in on the supposed deception?
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 ...
