Worst president in history?

[Steve]

Re: Iraq doesn't have to...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Hell, we're still in Japan, Germany and South Korea. It will take time.

This statement best embodies how and why the U.S. has managed to be as successful as it has been for the last century.

When we defeated Japan, we defeated a nation lead by a minority of power hungry, totalitarian zealots hell-bent on imperialist domination. Ditto for Germany. Communism was the focal point for Korea, when the world was split in an "us against them" mentality. The North went to the Communists and the South to the Allies following WWII; it was inevitable that Korea would become a sparring ground to test the limits of these oppositional ideologies.

In all cases, the U.S. stayed and helped to rebuild the war ravaged regions, allowing the peoples of those nations to decide what was best for themselves, while we oversaw the early years of restabilization. This is not thrusting our U.S. opinion on those who do not espouse it. For example, Japan is much more Socialistic today than the U.S. Germany regularly stands in opposition to us and Great Britain in terms of foreign policy. And even South Korea has requested our departure.

But our presence in these regions has fostered the Democratic process, where the people are able to choose their own destiny, and not have to continue to live under a dictator.

Make no mistake about it: we will have a presence in Iraq for a very long time, even if Kerry is elected President. This is a very amusing point from the campaign trail, if you think about it. Kerry has regularly spoken of formulating a plan of withdrawal, of giving sovereignity back to the Iraqi people. But even Kerry himself as president would realize the importance of maintaining a military presence in the region so that stability can spread to other nearby countries. And it will require, and last for, at least a generation to achieve.

 

[valentino]

Samspade

"In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public. "

If we are talking semantics, you are right, but it seems that the impression was meant to show a link between Sadaam and 9/11 specifically so it would tug at the heart strings of many americans.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by valentino
...but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public. "

Isn't this a case of "He said, she said"? Of course CRITICS would say that Bush left the impression that....

 

[Steve]

You know what, after 9/11 I could give a rat's azz about whether Saddam had ties to AQ, or had any connection with 9/11 directly. Just seeing him celebrating the destruction that occurred was enough to make me a backer of the war!

 

[valentino]

Originally posted by Steve
Isn't this a case of "He said, she said"? Of course CRITICS would say that Bush left the impression that....

We have a winna'

I said, you said. If someone said that Bush has ties to Osama and his family would that mean anything? Well, he does, facts are facts, and that makes him look bad, and makes me wonder if that is why Osama has not been found yet?

 

[Larry Gude]

Ditto what Steve...

...said.

If we are talking semantics, you are right, but it seems that the impression was meant to show a link between Sadaam and 9/11 specifically so it would tug at the heart strings of many americans.

Again I say, given the IWR, the 17 (I think) UN resolutions, the history, the things we knew fact certain and the nature of international terror and it's goals, why does this matter at ALL?

Had they said "Hey, let's go to war SOLEY because there might be a relationship between Saddam and Al Queda that ties into 9/11" you'd have a point but even then a minor one.

Hell, to me, suspicion alone is good enough for me to depose him..

For comparison of something you've said you approve of, what evidence have you seen or heard that makes you so sure we're doing the right thing in Afghanistan?

Taliban? Northern Alliance? Pakistan? Al Queda? We helped the Afghans against other enemies as we helped Iraq in the past against other enemies.

You seem to have a firm, commited understanding there.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by valentino
We have a winna'

I said, you said. If someone said that Bush has ties to Osama and his family would that mean anything? Well, he does, facts are facts, and that makes him look bad, and makes me wonder if that is why Osama has not been found yet?

When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia in 2000, I would regularly pass construction sites on my commute to and from work on the now defunct Prince Sultan Air Base. Stenciled prominently on the sides of most of the construction equipment were the words "Bin Laden"

At first, it really amazed me that here was the very name of our greatest terrorist threat. But guess what? The Bin Laden family enterprise in Saudi Arabia is vast. Anyone, any company, that does work in Saudi Arabia will eventually do business with the Bin Laden family. That's the way it works in a monarchy that imports most of it's hired help. The Bin Laden's are Saudis, not Pakistani immigrants.

But to make a statement that Bush has ties with Osama Bin Laden is simply rediculous.

That's like saying that I have ties to Dick Cheney, just because I happen to know someone whose mother is friends with the Governor of Nebraska. It all fits, doesn't it?

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by SamSpade

Many nations know that proliferation of these kinds of weapons is the sure way to them actually being used. That's why so many have chosen not to develop or stockpile them.

Funny you mention that. Today, someone was talking about gun control and used the exact same reasoning


I think the confusion with all of this comes from Bush himself:
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

 

[Larry Gude]

Val...

...I'm hoping this settles this thread.

I agree that Sadaam should have been taken care of long ago...Osama as well, whoever was the first to ignore his threats. I am not totally sure they were ignored, but hind sight shows that it was a mistake to ignore him or not try harder to stop him.

To do that, to have taken care of either long ago would have taken the same kind of action that Bush is taking now; A best, reasonable guess.

By that agreement, you should be saying that at the end of the day you agree Bush took the correct course of action and you just wanna complain about it some.

Next...

While we are at making comparisons, lets just pretend it was Sadaam who had the power to take over the US. I cannot even imagine how that would work out, but imagine how long it would take us to change our way of thinking to suit his....most likely forever, so why are we always trying to change people that do not want to change

Saddam would change us in a generation if he was able to attain the level of control over us as he did in Iraq.

NO ONE wants to live under tyranny. I'd say we are trying to help abused people to stand again, not 'change' people who don't want to change.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sam...

...I'll take your word for it on Korea. Makes sense to me.

I just wanted to use them as an example of why not to wait to long.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by SmallTown
Funny you mention that. Today, someone was talking about gun control and used the exact same reasoning

I am sure that the 2nd Amendment experts will chime in on this one, but I just had to say...

COME ON! YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

You are going to compare nuclear proliferation countermeasures with gun control? Then like guns, maybe all the Allied nations should destroy our nukes so that only the communists and terrorists have them, because we'll all be safe then!

 

[valentino]

Larry

It is the argument that we were convinced war was necessary under false pretenses. Just as the US wanted to impeach Clinton for his actions and lies about Monica, I think that the Bush administration should be investigated for exaggerations of the truth.

Sadaam and his cronies were and are bad people, I am not questioning that, and I do think that he should be taken care of, but we are not getting anywhere with our current efforts. 800+ American "children" have been killed since major fighting has ended in Iraq...and that bothers none of you...?

You are correct in that we help other coutries when our interests are at stake, no matter what are standing was before with that country...we always have.

Afghanistan seemed to have more of a combined threat potential, and of course was majorly responsible for 9/11. On either side I do not believe that violence is the way to get your point across.

Steve

There has been reports and other things stating that through the Bush oil companies there are links with the bin Ladens. I am not saying that Bush allowed 9/11 and other events, that would be crazy to think about, but the family was allowed freedoms that others in the US were not given right after 9/11 because of their family name. Osama's cousins were flown out of the US when no other planes were flying...no connections???

Smalltown

Not sure where your post is going, but we are a free nation and we attack other nations, and we have lots of WMD's.

 

[valentino]

While I hate to say it, I think that Bush should have done something about Osama and Sadaam, but it could have been done without so much of a risk to so many American coalition forces. We have Sadaam and there are still Americans dying everyday it seems, so while I agree that he was a problem, he was not the whole problem, and killing more of the people that certain cultures are trying to defend from "evil" America is not going to make them start thinking they should give us a break.

You would say that we are trying to help an abused people, I would say we are trying to make sure that our oil supply is forever secured. There are many other countries where there are abused peoples, including right here at home, but for some reason it works better when we have something to gain. Problem is that I have also read and heard that the oil profits and whatever other money that Iraq and other coutries gain from our "liberation" efforts will not pay for the war and the reconstruction, that will come from your pocket and mine through taxes. That bothers me as well because I was hoping to get some more schooling under my belt and then get me a nice tractor and trailer so I can take better care of the homestead...seriously.

 

[Larry Gude]

Hmm...

It is the argument that we were convinced war was necessary under false pretenses

We'll have to disagree. The opinions of the prior President that Saddam was a sooner or later problem along with the violation of UN resolutions and sanctions, our own Congressional vote and every other known fact simply makes exagerations, real or imagined, about 9/11 ties irrelevent.

If you've read the IWR and still hold the same position then we agree to disagree?

and that bothers none of you

My son is in Baghdad right now and every time, EVERY TIME a news flash comes up that a soldier or two was killed, my heart stops for a second. I felt ashamed yesterday because it was followed by a report that said they were Marines. I exhaled. He is Army. They were still somebodys son.

I believe that taking violent action against terror and those who support it and any other bad actor on the international stage is a good thing in the long run for all of us. Todays Osama and Saddam may become tomorrows Adolph Hitler or Joeseph Stalin, especially in the age of suitcase nukes and biological agents of stunning power.

Huge economies and massive militaires used to be the price of admission to the powerhouse club. No longer.

It takes men with guns and it takes violence to kill a terrorist or toss out a tyrant.

I could lose my kid to a car accident delivering pizzas.

If I lose him to the job of, I believe, the small, difficult first steps of changing the world to your and my way of living, in other words, the way we choose, freedom, then hopefully it will have been to save the lives of his sisters children, or yours and maybe a billion Muslims.

Or maybe the whole world.

You and those like you, to me, stand in the way of that because of personal hatred of George Bush. That's the only argument you all ever make that makes sense. Having said that, you are my fellow citizen and I need your support.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by valentino
That bothers me as well because I was hoping to get some more schooling under my belt and then get me a nice tractor and trailer so I can take better care of the homestead...seriously.

Okay, so in other words, you're jealous that you have to forgo your tractor so millions of people in another country can live without the fear of being drug out of their homes in the middle of the night and tortured.

Makes perfect sense now. The "Party of Compassion" indeed.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by valentino
Steve

There has been reports and other things stating that through the Bush oil companies there are links with the bin Ladens. I am not saying that Bush allowed 9/11 and other events, that would be crazy to think about, but the family was allowed freedoms that others in the US were not given right after 9/11 because of their family name. Osama's cousins were flown out of the US when no other planes were flying...no connections???

Again, anyone doing business in Saudi Arabia, especially oil-related business, will eventually create partnerships with the Bin Laden family. For example, and I mentioned this before, the Saud family has given oversight of all in-country construction to the Bin Laden family-owned company. If you build something in Saudi Arabia, like an oil production facility or an Air Base, the construction will be managed by the Bin Ladens.

The Bin Laden family members who were in the US on 9/11 were given permission to leave the US using privately chartered transportation, while domestic planes were still gounded. The decision to allow this departure was approved by the FBI and Richard Clarke, White House counterterrorism adviser.

(Read here: link

Whether that was the right thing to do or not will be debated into history, no doubt. Was it Bush covering for his Saudi pals? Who knows? Makes for a good conspiracy story though; the whole Skull and Bones connection, perhaps.

Do you think detaining them here, imprisoning them perhaps, would have been a better course of action? Should we have done that to the Bin Laden family members, and the members of the royal family? Or maybe we should have kept the Bin Ladens, but let the royal family go? Would that have helped or hurt our relations with Saudi Arabia at that time? Not now, but then?

 

[valentino]

Larry

Well, I am not sure that you are totally correct in the assumption that Bush is the only one on my list of idiocracy. Bush is definitely not the only one to blame and I bet there is much more going on in other areas of government and business that we would all be appalled by for one reason or another. Maybe just a fact of life, but I do not have to like it.

The IWR does prove that some people were privy to certain information, but the American public seems to have been deceived into thinking something else.

While I sympathize and agree that your rationalization might be mine as well if my son or daugher were in Iraq at the moment, I still find it baffling that we think going to war with a country is going to convince them that they should change their ways to be more like the collective us.

vraiblonde

Interesting choice of words since that is what many are claiming the US forces are doing to innocent Iraqis. Whether they are innocent or not, I really could not tell, and neither could you, but having less money because of a war that I do not agree with bothers me, no matter how much of a hypocrite it makes me.

Steve

I am unsure of what I would have done with the bin Ladens or the royal family. It seems that to Bush they are friends, and I also know that to an extent they do not agree with what Osama is doing, but Osama has, at least in the past, benefited from monies gained by the Bush's and the Sauds...

I understand your point about there being no choice but to be connected, but it just makes the administration look bad when things like that are going on behind peoples back. There were no flights allowed at the time, commercial or private, so this was a special situation apparently.

 

[Voter2002]

Originally posted by Steve
The Bin Laden family members who were in the US on 9/11 were given permission to leave the US using privately chartered transportation, while domestic planes were still gounded. The decision to allow this departure was approved by the FBI and Richard Clarke, White House counterterrorism adviser.

(Read here: link

Whether that was the right thing to do or not will be debated into history, no doubt. Was it Bush covering for his Saudi pals? Who knows? Makes for a good conspiracy story though; the whole Skull and Bones connection, perhaps.

Do you think detaining them here, imprisoning them perhaps, would have been a better course of action? Should we have done that to the Bin Laden family members, and the members of the royal family? Or maybe we should have kept the Bin Ladens, but let the royal family go? Would that have helped or hurt our relations with Saudi Arabia at that time? Not now, but then?

Debated in History? I doubt it. That's like saying Charles Manson's or Jeffrey Dalmer's parents should have been locked up just because they were relatives of killers. They probably got moved out of the country for their own safety (aka....lynching mobs) and no - they should not have been imprisioned just because they were related to Osama. Financial support from Bin Laden family to Osama? No. It was already reported that he was an outcast from the family and not supported by their money.

 

[Otter]

but Osama has, at least in the past, benefited from monies gained by the Bush's and the Sauds...

And where did you get this little nugget of info?? cite??

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by Voter2002
Debated in History? I doubt it. That's like saying Charles Manson's or Jeffrey Dalmer's parents should have been locked up just because they were relatives of killers. They probably got moved out of the country for their own safety (aka....lynching mobs) and no - they should not have been imprisioned just because they were related to Osama. Financial support from Bin Laden family to Osama? No. It was already reported that he was an outcast from the family and not supported by their money.

Personally, if I were in charge I would have made the same call and let the 140 Sauds and Bin Ladens leave the country. I think it was the right call, even if people within the FBI scoff at the decision. These were known people, with known backgrounds, and protecting their safety in light of the potential threat immediately following 9/11 was the right thing to do. Does anyone remember when Arab-American businesses were somewhat targeted by angry Americans just after 9/11? The 140 would have been prime targets, simply becasue of the familial ties. It was the right call IMHO.