Bush - Bad for the Country

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Racoon

The intractable war we're in??
What the hell happened to Osama Bin Laden?? I thought he is who we were after

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden, we are still looking for him in Afghanistan.

The war in Iraq was the result of Hussein's breach of the conditions required by the first Iraq war. He was a brutal, genocidal dictator that should have been removed during the first Iraq war. Now that we are there the war has continued because of an influx of terrorists that are attacking us and the Iraqi people. The new government there has asked us to stay until they can fend for themselves. is over, we are now stuck there protecting their people. To leave now would be inhumane.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

Bin Laden is in AFGANISTAN. You know that little bit of high country just north of India.

It's a small point, but I think you'll find Tibet lies to the north of India.
Afghanistan lies to the north west of Pakistan.

There is a reason we Brits called it the North West frontier you know. Unoriginal? True, but damn convenient if you wanted to know which way to march your invading army.

[Erasmus00]

My only contribution will be that I think Bush's administration has set a bad trend in terms of dealing with science and scientists. It isn't that he doesn't listen to scientists, there is nothing new in that, but distorting and censoring EPA studies, not allowing government scientists to speak to the press without administration handlers, etc. To me, its an alarming trend.
-Will

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

My only contribution will be that I think Bush's administration has set a bad trend in terms of dealing with science and scientists. It isn't that he doesn't listen to scientists, there is nothing new in that, but distorting and censoring EPA studies, not allowing government scientists to speak to the press without administration handlers, etc. To me, its an alarming trend.
-Will

I think you will find this practice is very old, only the blame seems new.

Bill

[Jay-qu]

I dont know Im kind of ignorant when it comes to global politics.. he doesnt seem to be much of a favorite, how much longer is he in for?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Racoon

What we spend to fund the EPA in 1 year, we are spending in Iraq in 1 week! approximately...
Bush is bad for the environment. During his first term:

Federal lawsuits against corporate polluters violating regulations fell 75% (hmmm, campaign contributers?)

Hazardous waste clean-ups down 52%
Clean air inspections down 52%
But public beach closings UP 36%
Mercury levels up, clean water contamination up.

the 2007 EPA budget will be cut another 4%! (to $7.4 billion)

Do we want to live in a polluted country with animal and plant species disappearing? Environment is so important.
Dirty Air! Dirty Water! Extinct Animals! Carcinogenic toxins everywhere!
Do we want that for our children and grandchildren?

There were alot of changes in the EPA and associated programs before Bush Jr. was elected. Superfund monies had been depleted and many spots still needed cleaning. One idea was to focus on the sites we know of and finish the job there. Alot of waste was being produced on the bureucratic side by monitoring things that were not changing. Additionally, the discoveries being made during some of this cleanup confounded the experts. They knew x amount of chemical 1 was put here, on the ground 30-40-60 years ago and when years later, the corportate and state and federal entites had a plan, agreement and resources to clean up the area, they found much of it had dissapeared. Further studies done in some of these areas revealed microbes which had dispersed these pollutants. Now they have to study these microbes themselves before unleashing them into the environment on a whole scale effort to disperse the pollutants. You have probably read a bit on the oil munching bacterias. Its way bigger than that.

Another discovery made during these attempts to clean up resulted in further contaminations. This is why no one is hurrying up to clean up the river bottom along New York. Because of the condition there, the expected release into the waterway of the buried chemicals in the silt of the river will exceed the pollution standards and re-release the toxins into the environment. Its a 'better to let sleeping dogs lay' philosophy.

Then there are things that they cannot do anything about, such as existing ground water contaminations and topographical contaminations. There are some things we just dont know how to fix yet.

Now I do agree with you on a few things Bush has proposed such as relaxing emission standards for older power facilities, rather than the philosophy that was implemented during the 70s - 80s of, you want to exand you upgraded your facilities to meet existing standards.

Here is another issue. We have built no new refineries in 30 years or so. Now I dont know how much technology has changed in this area but I do know part of the reason for this non-construction is local resistance to such things. The NIMBY aspect of people. If newer refineries can produce fuels at a lower rate of contamination/pollutant generation, and higher production of the fuels, are we shooting ourselves in the foot by resisting the new facilities?

[Amtekoth]

Originally Posted by C1ay

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden, we are still looking for him in Afghanistan.

The war in Iraq was the result of Hussein's breach of the conditions required by the first Iraq war.

That's NOT the case that was pushed in public at the time. Dick Cheney, in particular, linked Osama and Saddam in speeches over and over again, even when it was reported that no proof of a functional relationship existed.

Bush and his people took their eye off the real enemy, the extreme Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists, as personified by Osama and his fellow Al-Qaida murderers, to pursue regime change in Iraq. The reasons given in public changed repeatedly as their evidence failed to pan out or were shown to be false or twisted. And these are the folks who got re-elected by calling Kerry a waffler! People in the room at the time have come forward (after they left their government jobs) to tell the story of Bush's insistence on going into Iraq, regardless of 9/11. The administration’s apologists and allies savaged these whistleblowers.

Originally Posted by C1ay

He was a brutal, genocidal dictator that should have been removed during the first Iraq war. Now that we are there the war has continued because of an influx of terrorists that are attacking us and the Iraqi people. The new government there has asked us to stay until they can fend for themselves. is over, we are now stuck there protecting their people. To leave now would be inhumane.

As has been pointed out by others, there were (and still are) other brutal dictators out there. This administration seems to be very selective about which genocides they punish and which ones they don't, IMO.

There are now far more foreign terrorists in Iraq than there were before the war. That's an irony that seems to elude Bush.

My personal opinion is that we have to deal with the mess we've been dragged into under false pretenses. Number one should be to get rid of the people responsible for the mess: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Neocons who assailed the patriotism of anyone who tried to point out that the Emperor was buck naked.

George Tenet resigned, so we can't fire him. But Bush did give the guy who "lied to him" the Medal of Freedom. Good job, Georgie!

This congress will never impeach Bush (he could kill a child, carried live on Fox News, and they wouldn't).

A ramped exit over the next two years is my thought.

Blah, gotta run (I need to take care of some chores). I'll chime in more later.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Racoon

Why didn't Bush Sr. do the job the first time??
and like the US is so much better.
We funded and empowered Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war.

It was a complicated arrangement with the middle east powers that allowed us to even begin to push Saddam out of Kuwait. The deal that was agreed to was to put Saddam back on his side of the line in the sand and pull out. We achieved the goal set with the entire region/world and we held to our side of the bargain. It was as much a diplomatic effort and trust building effort as it was a war against Saddam. We would not be in Iraq now if Saddam had held to his end of the cease fire/end of the war agreement he had signed. And Saddam would still be in power there.

One thing that bothers me in all the after effects of this Persian Gulf 1 is the manipulation and downright violations of the agreements by other countries during the santion period, France, Germany and Russia come to mind. The protests against the santions under the flag of 'Babys are dying in Iraq', when there were plenty of methods for Saddam to feed his people, and this whole time Saddam is syphoning most of the money to support his ego. Why isnt the world willing to put the blame where it belongs, with Saddam himself as the reason why these things occured in Iraq?

Originally Posted by Racoon

It seems that we should have found Bin Laden first...
That was the real Target!
Then we all got sidetracked and misled with this Iraq thing.

People tend to forget Osama, when you war with another country..
Its biased Media and sneaky politics.

I dont think we have forgotten so much as the sneaky bastard is being protected by many. We have a hell of a time busting up gangs in our own country. But I do agree with you that we should have finished the job in Afghanistan before launching another strike in the middle east.

Originally Posted by Racoon

Exactly. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with Bin Laden.
It has to do with Oil, and strategic positioning for Iran.
Where are the results? of 3 years and Hundreds of Billions of Dollars? And thousands if not millions of lives.
We are not the Global Police! and We go after Saddam, but there are leaders just like him that we don't go after.

I agree that strategic positioning was a primary motivation. Not just for Iran, but for the whole middle east. I can see the logic of that choice because of the potential for the people to unite for the most part, the foundation already in place of power/energy processing, communications, education, etc. I am not convinced the oil there was a primary motivation other than it would be there to supply other countries demands and lessen the load/competition for other american interests/investments in other oil nations.

Originally Posted by Racoon

And Bin Laden is plenty smart and has enough support to be in Pakistan or somewhere else. (Gee, we helped and trained Him Too!)

I have found no compelling evidence that we helped train bin laden. The association between the mujadeen and the USA is indirect. Its like saying the crips and bloods of LA had direct contact with Pablo Escobar.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Racoon

The War on Terror is intractable. Just like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs.

So. We don't have a choice to quit. The other side will keep attacking until we do what they want. Are you ready to install an Al-Qaeda government and sharia law? The radical muslims that are the terrorists of the world want all infidels dead. Our choice is to die fighting for what we believe or die laying there while they slaughter us. Do you really prefer to just lie there?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Racoon

And a Republican Congress that has passed so many of Bush's Bills.
Yeah, He didn't get to be President without support.

Bush Policies are looking worse and worse as time goes on friend.

So, they've passed many of his bills, they did not pass all of his budget. You're still trying to blame Bush for the actions of Congress and he IS NOT responsible for Congress, the people are. BTW, he did not get to be President because of Congress or their support for him.

He has good and bad policies as all Presidents do. At least he makes the decisions that need to be made without worrying what the people will think of him. That is his job.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Racoon

Considering WE gave Saddam what he had; and Bush's Staff was created by Bush himself! (Don't forget Dick Cheney who has been there for a long time! Oh, and James Baker, Oh, and...)

Please explain that one Clay

Is that your way of claiming that we gave him all those Russian and French arms? We did not give him all that he had. We contributed to his efforts against Iran but he certainly had many more connections than the U.S.

Try to look at the big picture and not just the pieces you want to see. Bush has made his share of blunders but you cannot blame everything on him just because you are too blind to see any blame elsewhere. There is plenty to go around. There wouldn't have even been a need to look for Bin Laden if Clinton had accepted the efforts made to turn Bin Laden over to us.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Amtekoth

That's NOT the case that was pushed in public at the time. Dick Cheney, in particular, linked Osama and Saddam in speeches over and over again, even when it was reported that no proof of a functional relationship existed.

That was not the reason pushed for the Iraq war resolution passed by Congress nor was it the reasons pushed by Powell to the UN. Cheney clained that there was some type of a relationship between Saddam and Hussein, which has been proven BTW, but it was not pushed as a reason to attack Iraq.

Originally Posted by Amtekoth

Bush and his people took their eye off the real enemy, the extreme Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists, as personified by Osama and his fellow Al-Qaida murderers, to pursue regime change in Iraq.

No they didn't. They tried to fight two wars on two fronts at the same time.

Originally Posted by Amtekoth

As has been pointed out by others, there were (and still are) other brutal dictators out there. This administration seems to be very selective about which genocides they punish and which ones they don't, IMO.

No others that we had a signed cease fire agreement with that they have violated. Feel free to name them if I am mistaken though.

Originally Posted by Amtekoth

There are now far more foreign terrorists in Iraq than there were before the war. That's an irony that seems to elude Bush.

It's not eluding him at all. Bush would love to bring all of the troops home tomorrow. Our continued presence in Iraq is killing his popularity but he knows, if we pull out now Iraq will become another Afghanistan with a terrorist run government. That seems to be what the war protesters want though

Originally Posted by Amtekoth

This congress will never impeach Bush

Feel free to list the "high crimes and misdemeanors" you think they could actually convict him of. You can't impeach a President for bad decisions or just being unpopular. You have to convict him of committing crimes. In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination; by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. Don't you think any of the competent lawyers involved in Congress would have at least initiated an investigation by committee at this point if there was something they thought he could be proven guilty of?