Busy downtown Seattle Oct 5

[tvashtarkatena]

for your edification I will list this:

 

since 9/11 there has not been a single successful terrorist attack on the US.

 

This conservative will respond to you with this:

 

Since 911 we've had well over 2000 Americans die and more than 20,000 wounded by terrorists...in Iraq. All directly and avoidably as a result of this administration's policies.

 

Nice accounting trick. Too bad Enron's no longer hiring.

 

Plus, you might read up on the National Intelligence Estimate's most recent conclusions about our security. But of course, what do those whiny CIA liberals know?

Edited October 6, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[StevenSeagal]

I think that there is a silent majority that doesn't give a rip till it impacts them heavily.

 

 

Exactly. Which is precisely what makes me call BS on the Iraq war and the war on terror- at least, as far as Bush being it's leader. Every day we are sternly reminded that "THIS NATION IS AT WAR!" But what has Bush and the government asked his countrymen and women to contribute to this effort? Anything at all? Go shopping? Go about your business? Support me and my policies and go back to work, don't worry, big government daddy will handle this for all of you?

 

How are we as a nation supposed to take this "war" seriously, feel involved, feel its reality, when the government's primary concern is that everyone's standard of living remains unaffected and no one has to partipate apart from the soldiers who already volunteered?

 

If at the outset Bush: raised taxes, instituted the draft, rationed gasoline, commandeered manufacturing industry, or AT LEAST: informed citizens that the survival of the country was at stake, AND THAT, as citizens, we were all OBLIGED to contribute in some way to the effort...asked for our help...we may not have liked it entirely but we would surely have had some tangible sense of the gravity and seriousness of the war. Instead, his actions make me think through all the talk talk talk, warning, warning, warnings about terror and enemies- he's absolutely NOT SERIOUS about this. His further bungling of both Iraq and Afghanistan by not sending enough troops and fighting the war from the strategy of "we're only trying to hit the bad guys so we don't make anyone mad" has resulted in neither Shock nor Awe- it makes us look spineless and also look like we're just there with enough troops to secure the oil fields and embroil ourselves in a perpetual war with which they can continue to manipulate the emotions of the American people back home indefinitely.

 

If your going to fight a war, then FIGHT A FUCKING WAR. Don't pretend it's something else, and don't ask the country for nothing apart from complicity.

[mattp]

I have seen more than one report indicating that security has not improved. Here is an example: msnbc 2005

 

I think Tvash mention of the recent intelligence estimate is hinting that there, too, it has been concluded that we are not doing a good job on security. Heckovajob, Bushie.

[ClimbingPanther]

i think what is more important than just making sure no one attackes us is to builld a social, political and economic climate where these terrorists will not have the need to attack america. all of the actions bush has taken have done nothing to resolve this, and i personally think that is a problem.

 

Spot on, man.

 

For you still waiting for that list, I did previously note a couple things,

No Child Left Behind is a very good concept to make schools accoutable to teach kids stuff they need to know

The tax cut was theoretically a good first step, though the REPUBLICAN congress' (surprising?) love of pork along with the war has prevented the budget from remaining balanced (props to Clinton for doing that during his time)

[chucK]

Thanks Climbingpanther, KK and Underworld for coming up with some reasons.

 

No Child Left Behind seems like it could be a good thing. I guess the jury's still out as some claim it to be an "unfunded mandate", but perhaps that is just whiners wanting more federal $$. This seems like the answer closest to making me believe that every single thing Bush does may not be evil and/or incompetent.

 

Cutting taxes is always nice, but to do it at a time when deficits are so high seems very shortsighted in my mind. I understand that proponents feel that it helps the economy and thus increases revenues, but so far that hasn't played out in the metric of our deficit numbers.

 

No terrorist attacks since 9/11 is pretty good, but it is sort of like giving Clinton credit for his budget surplus, Bush Senior credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall, and Truman for victory in the Pacific.

 

Underworld, it may be admirable that someone sticks to their guns. People always value consistency, but I personally feel it's overrated if it prevents one from being able to continually evaluate outside stimulus and to react. To be able react to a complex environment and unforseen problems is something that should not be discouraged. And, to dig deeper, is there anything Bush has done that YOU agree with?

[chucK]

but what has he done to prevent the continuation of an atmosphere where terriorists will want to attack us.

 

I think if you take him at his word, he has tried to do something. He has articulated that his strategy to combat terrorism is to foster Democracies. Sounds like a good idea on it's face. Too bad it's not working out though.

[enelson]

um, fuck no child left behind. cutting funding from already underprivledged kids is not the way to help them succeed. we need a paradigm shift in the way we are looking at education. not every child is the same and not every child can pass the same test mandated around the country. local discretion must be used, one place where i really believe a huge bureaucracy is hurting the nation. i think bill gates could change the way we look at this, but our future is at stake here, something has to be done, and punnishing students with worse conditions and less funding when they already started out with insufficent resources to succeed in the first place is not the way to accomplish change. almost makes me as mad as the war if you can't tell.

[Jim]

For you still waiting for that list, I did previously note a couple things,

No Child Left Behind is a very good concept to make schools accoutable to teach kids stuff they need to know

The tax cut was theoretically a good first step, though the REPUBLICAN congress' (surprising?) love of pork along with the war has prevented the budget from remaining balanced (props to Clinton for doing that during his time)

 

Thanks, yes you did respond in reasoned manner. I was waiting for underworld in particular.

[enelson]

but what has he done to prevent the continuation of an atmosphere where terriorists will want to attack us.

 

I think if you take him at his word, he has tried to do something. He has articulated that his strategy to combat terrorism is to foster Democracies. Sounds like a good idea on it's face. Too bad it's not working out though.

 

agreed. sounds good, but isn't working out.

[tvashtarkatena]

The ten best things that Bush has accomplished while having both houses of Congress.

 

1) He's really shown those uppity Iranians and North Koreans who's boss.

2) He created the largest National Monument in our history...in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I can't wait to take my 165 foot yacht there.

3) He's greatly improved America's knowledge of Middle Eastern geography.

4) We're going to Mars!

5) Condi's pretty hot, when viewed from the back.

6) He really gets behind his people, even when they get behind their pages.

7) He kept his domestic spying, torture, and CIA prison programs secret so we would have to worry our purty lil' heads over 'em.

8) After this amazing summer, I'm beginning to like his take on global warming.

9) He got Saddam. Jesus, I just couldn't sleep at night.

10) He's finally learned how to pronounce 'nuclear'.

Edited October 6, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

From Bush's first post 911 speech to Congress:

 

I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.

 

I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here.

 

We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.

 

Yep!

[enelson]

From Bush's first post 911 speech to Congress:

 

I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.

 

I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here.

 

We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.

 

Yep!

 

like torture. we must fight to torture people because that is a value americans uphold. if we uphold the principle of torture, we have responsibility to live by it and torture them goddamnit

[ClimbingPanther]

enelson, I agree NCLB isn't a perfect solution, but it's at least acknowledging that there's a problem that schools aren't teaching kids what they need to know in order to succeed. Cutting funding is probably the dumbest idea possible for fixing whatever problems may be there (reminds me of the Bible story about Pharaoh telling the Israelites to make bricks without straw), but making the school leaders responsible for turning their school around is definitely a positive mark for the law. No legislation is perfect (even the constitution has been amended how many times?) but NCLB at least acknowledged a problem and tries to fix it. Hopefully it will be a dynamic law and will be adapted to fit with what is being shown to work and what is bogus.

[enelson]

yes, i am with you cp. i just have trouble trying to make every kid fit into the same mold for a test. just a goofy line of reasoning. i think it really comes down to who is willing to care about kids success. if no one cares, then all the federal mandates and budget cuts or raises won't help kids learn if no one takes the time to show them their success matters to the world.

[tvashtarkatena]

AND THAT, as citizens, we were all OBLIGED to contribute in some way to the effort

 

Back to the torture issue, which is how this all started, I'd like to take SS's idea, which I wholeheartedly agree with, a bit further. It seems quite a few Americans now accept the idea of torture as a necessary evil...as long as someone else does the dirty work, of course. Well, I'd like to see a new policy, like that Florida mandatory gun law, where everyone is required to participate. Why should the CIA have all the fun?

 

It works like this: You sign up for your weekly slot, go down to your local detention center, where you're issued some rubber hose, sound attenuators (for the 130 dB white noise...plus, some of those assholes really have a set of pipes!), surgical protection, and a dry suit for the water sports portion. Torture is a strenuous business, but if we all just gave an hour a week of our time, we'd get a workout and provide some relief to our already overworked torturers, particularly after this new legislation spikes the number of terrorists in need of a good talking to. From what I've read, torture is a little rough at first for the inexperienced interrogator, but after a while, you really get into it.

[underworld]

For you still waiting for that list, I did previously note a couple things,

No Child Left Behind is a very good concept to make schools accoutable to teach kids stuff they need to know

The tax cut was theoretically a good first step, though the REPUBLICAN congress' (surprising?) love of pork along with the war has prevented the budget from remaining balanced (props to Clinton for doing that during his time)

 

Thanks, yes you did respond in reasoned manner. I was waiting for underworld in particular.

 

sorry dude.. busy at work only skimmed thru the stuff right now. but one thing i've liked that is a more broad answer and i think we've covered before is that he's shown leadership. he had a swift and sturn response to 9-11. putting aside whether it was the right decisions, truly it is too early to tell and i'm not claiming i like or dislike them. but he did reasonable things as a response with the approval and support of both parties. he didn't waffle around. again, we've beat to death the question of if his actions were the correct ones - but at the time it appeared they were. these are signs of a good leader. find out what everyone wants and then act accordingly.

 

in 5 or 10 years from now we can spray whether he fqed the world. i don't know yet. i don't have that kind of scope right now to know.

 

(for the record i am not a w worshiper. this discussion, as far as i'm concerned is not about bush but ideals and opinions. i don't think i've said anything in either direction whether i think he's a good president or not)

[Crux]

Still waiting for that list.

 

like the "list" has not been discussed before. you lefties hate everything Bush has done or said to the point of hysteria. anything that is listed, you will attack and deny is a success.

 

for your edification I will list this:

 

since 9/11 there has not been a single successful terrorist attack on the US.

 

I know what you liberals will say in response to this, and, as you post your inane comments, I will chuckle aloud with satisfaction at knowing your predictability so well.

So, can you actually name one good thing he has done? Please answer if you can. Bear in mind the question is now asked here by self-described conservatves and Republicans as well as liberals. Also please bear in mind that Bush had our unanimous support after 9-11, until he went forward with the administration's Neocon agenda instead of a democratic American agenda. Since then, to be clear, thousands of Americans have been hit, maimed, and killed in terrorist attacks. Since then, the world has turned against us. Since then, our nation has become divided. And now in Iraq, our brave troops are doing a 21st-century rendition of Custer's last stand as we sit here and spray.

 

This is shameful. Come on, the gig is up.

[Jim]

sorry dude.. busy at work only skimmed thru the stuff right now. but one thing i've liked that is a more broad answer and i think we've covered before is that he's shown leadership. he had a swift and sturn response to 9-11. putting aside whether it was the right decisions, truly it is too early to tell and i'm not claiming i like or dislike them. but he did reasonable things as a response with the approval and support of both parties. he didn't waffle around.

 

In other words you can't answer the question. You need to research it? You could have typed up a list in the time it took you to type out that avoid-the-issue paragraph. Stunning silence.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Jim

[tvashtarkatena]

in 5 or 10 years from now we can spray whether he fqed the world. i don't know yet. i don't have that kind of scope right now to know.

 

In 5 or 10 years you'll probably be the last American, excepting those in comas, who still ponders the answer to this question. The evidence, at this point, while it may not be infinite, is overwhelming. Just how much more information do you need?

 

In any case, we don't have 5 or 10 years to find out. We need to change direction now, based on the grim information we have available.

[chucK]

one thing i've liked [...] is that he's shown leadership. he had a swift and sturn response to 9-11.

 

OK another thing I could understand that people like about him. In fact, it seems like a good decision to me too (the swift response in Afghanistan).

 

So I guess I now have two points of data of things where GWB is not a complete incompetent asshole.

 

I remember when GWB was elected I thought, "No big deal. How bad can he be?" I was a little bummed that the environment candidate didn't make it, but he didn't even campaign on that so WTF.

 

Initial couple of months were reasonable stuff. NCLB happened then I think, back when GWB was an ordinary president, probably listened to people, made compromises (NCLB was co-sponsored by Kennedy I believe), did not fuck things up. Then 9/11 happened. GWB invades Afghanistan. Good. Probably needed to be done. I was a little grumbly that this Republican was getting all these props for doing something anyone would do in his position, but whatever, can't really complain.

 

THEN he got a big head. Started thinking he could do whatever the fuck he wanted, and the congress let him. Without constraint he has bungled one thing after another. When people started saying he was making noise about invading Iraq, I thought they were joking. I thought they were just the whacko extreme left wing. But no. Jesus christ! Us invading a sovereign country without direct provocation? The USA isn't supposed to do that, that's the Soviet Union's job.

 

Fuckin' A, all downhill from there. Enron and CA energy crisis. Using that fiasco to support anti-environmental legislation. Tax cuts in a time of war and massive deficit spending. Blatant bad science propaganda tactics w.r.t. environmental legislation. Listening in on phone calls, massive surveillance databases on Americans without a warrant. Locking people up without due process, kidnapping and torturing people. Actually brazenly and openly supporting these horrific practices. Extreme incompetence and cronyism leading to horrible debacles in Katrina and Iraq. Where will it fucking end? Thank God he didn't succeed in diverting our Social security monies to Wall Street, though if it keeps going on like this the US Treasury may be no more solvent than gambling on stocks.

 

So thank you for your responses to my question of, "name one good thing." It did make me remember the halcyon days of pre Iraq. Sorry, but I must now ask the question, "What has he done for us lately?"

 

I posit that GWB has done NOTHING good for the last 4 years, ever since he got his big head from 9/11.

[underworld]

sorry dude.. busy at work only skimmed thru the stuff right now. but one thing i've liked that is a more broad answer and i think we've covered before is that he's shown leadership. he had a swift and sturn response to 9-11. putting aside whether it was the right decisions, truly it is too early to tell and i'm not claiming i like or dislike them. but he did reasonable things as a response with the approval and support of both parties. he didn't waffle around.

 

In other words you can't answer the question. You need to research it? You could have typed up a list in the time it took you to type out that avoid-the-issue paragraph. Stunning silence.

 

you asked for something i liked... i answered "he's shown leadership". how is that not answering. kudos to chuck for recognizing it. geeez!!

 

if you need another - i like that he's nominamted pro-lifers for the supreme court.

[Jim]

You could start by s-l-o-w-l-y reading the question. I asked for you to list his accomplishments. You told me a person trait. Still waiting.

 

Supreme court right-to-lifers. Ok that's one. That's it?

Edited October 6, 2006 by Jim

[tvashtarkatena]

In fact, it seems like a good decision to me too (the swift response in Afghanistan).

 

A couple of issues ago the New Yorker ran a good article about the effect that removing the Taliban had on Al Qaeda. According to intercepted emails between, for example, Osama and his son, the organization suffered greatly from the loss of their safe haven in Afghanistan.

 

Then Iraq happened. Now Al Qaeda, which has become a worldwide movement, has more recruits than it can handle, as is apparent in Iraq. And the Taliban is back throughout a large section of Afghanistan. Iran is on the rise. Hezbollah has never been more popular and powerful. Islamic fundamentalism has never had more followers. What was probably an appropriate and effective response after 911 was transformed by Iraq into a fountain of fuel for the enemy's fire.

 

Bush's performance as President should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with his career. He's fucked up virtually everything he's gotten his hands on. He has a long history of not following through and not processing current information effectively. Commenting on his intelligence is a parlor game, but his poor record of success speaks volumes about his incompetence.

 

What interests me about the whole 'Bush the Strong Leader' schtick is the implied assumption that someone else wouldn't have been just as strong up front and done a much better job on follow up. Take Clinton: excellent outcome to a horrific situation in Bosnia and Kosovo. Who's to say Gore wouldn't have been able to pull of the same strong initial response without the diversionary fuck up afterwards? Or John I-actually-volunteered-for-combat-duty-rather-than-skating-through-my-national-guard-service Kerry? Frankly, at this point, who's to say Johnny Knoxville wouldn't have done a better job in the long run?

[underworld]

What interests me about the whole 'Bush the Strong Leader' schtick is the implied assumption that someone else wouldn't have been just as strong up front and done a much better job on follow up. [...]Or John I-actually-volunteered-for-combat-duty-rather-than-skating-through-my-national-guard-service Kerry? Frankly, at this point, who's to say Johnny Knoxville wouldn't have done a better job in the long run?

 

i pretty much agree with this. that is, that it is allll speculation. what you've said can be just as easily turned around. "who's to say that if kerry was in office, things would be any better" it's ALLLLLL what-if's

 

the what-if's make for good fun conversation but it's gotta all be kept in perspective and not believe that the speculation is fact.

[Jim]

the what-if's make for good fun conversation but it's gotta all be kept in perspective and not believe that the speculation is fact.

 

Well looking at facts on the ground, and such professional assessments as the NIA, it's indisputable that the invasion of Iraq will go down as the number one world policy strategic blunder in the past 25 years. But you never know. We still have a couple of years for the Bushies to upstage themselves.