BushWorld

[Squiggy]

He's not my "fuhrer." He's better for the job than John Kerry is, but if there's a good Libertarian candidate this year I'll probably vote for him instead. But here you are, trying to use people's hatred of Hitler against Bush, a completely unrelated person. That's what some would refer to as a "logical fallacy."

My bad...I should have remembered that from where you jumped all over Gonz for his "John F'ing Slick Willie Kerry" thread title...

BTW, folks... Its ok to sign your bad karma. You don't have to send it anonymously....

 

[samcurry]

the sad thing is with EVERY president we can have a list like this. All of them are liars and will mislead us to further their own agendas. Unfortunately we the voters are left with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Which still leaves us with an evil in the white house.

 

[Squiggy]

the sad thing is with EVERY president we can have a list like this. All of them are liars and will mislead us to further their own agendas. Unfortunately we the voters are left with voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Which still leaves us with an evil in the white house.

Which is sadly tolerable...until they start having people die for their agendas...

 

[samcurry]

This is true squiggs, but name a president who hasnt sent our boys into some distant country only to die in our lifetime? I cant think of any. The scale may have been smaller then currently but they have all done it.
And for the most part we come back with our tail between our legs worried about international propaganda and that we might not have any friends if we really did what we went in for in the first place.

 

[paul_valaru]

you have to give bush one thing, he stands by what he says.

 

[Oz]

you have to give bush one thing, he stands by what he says.

I thought he stood by wot God said?

 

[paul_valaru]

I thought he stood by wot God said?

no he thinks he is........


uhmm, nevermind

that is another story, and a side of him I find distastful I can understand him being a christian, but I find he brings it up too often, and it alienates voters who are not christian. I also find it influences his policy desicions, which is blurring that all important line between church and state.

His good points are he is intelligent (I know they make fun of him, but he comes off looking dumb becasue he is a horrible public speaker)

he has a strong personality, and goes after what he thinks is right.

bad points

he goes after what HE thinks is right.

and if i where an american and had to choose, I'd be a democrat.

 

[samcurry]

see paul thats the problem most voters vote straight ticket. nevermind that an idiot could end up our leader. Its always a sad year when elections are at hand.

 

[Inkara1]

BTW, folks... Its ok to sign your bad karma. You don't have to send it anonymously....

That's one point I do agree with you on. I always sign mine, and it's pretty rare that I give it out, positive or negative.

 

[RDX]

Interesting read.

In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home.

Well...yes, but this has been the case for a long time, not just Bush. I personally don't find it necessary to expose our fallen troops to public exposure. It seems less dignified; obviously you have a different opinion.

In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership against terror.

I agree with you on this one. Using pictures of fallen troops is not the way to campaign.

In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power.

Give it some time. Democracies usually aren't born over night; especially in nations that have never experienced a democratic governemnt.

In Bushworld, we can win over Falluja by bulldozing it.

If negotiations fail, is there a reasonable alternative?

In Bushworld, it was worth going to war so Iraqis can express their feelings ("Down With America!") without having their tongues cut out, although we cannot yet allow them to express intemperate feelings in newspapers ("Down With America!") without shutting them down.

Actually, in all recent polls the majority of Iraqis still support the US invasion in Iraq. Most of them would also like self rule, but the safety of their country is a larger consideration.

In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9/11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that you're insisting you're not planning.

In all reality, $700 million is really not much money considering what kind of dough we're really putting into the war. You are right though; if congress approved those funds for Afghanistan, they should be going there.

In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes.

Are you a big fan of Bush Sr ? Are you critisizing Bush for being a Christian? When was the last time we had a President that wasn't a Christian (or at least claimed to be)?

In Bushworld, it's O.K. to run for re-election as the avenger of 9/11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

Now this caught be by surprise! I thought that you of all people would not pushing for the invasion of Saudi Arabia!

In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations.

Yes, it's just a big pissing contest. It really doesn't matter at all. I don't care if Bush or Kerry recieved 14 purple hearts and 5 medals of honor, it doesn't have anything to do with the job of being President.

In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in Mr. and Mrs. Rival while cultivating your own opacity.

Highlight your strenghths, hide your weaknesses; expose the opponents weaknesses - I don't see how he is different from any other polotician in this regard?

In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about Al Qaeda's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush.

Do you realize how many briefings the President goes through each day? If he responded at each hint of trouble by evacuating entire cities, I doubt you would be praising him.

In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and money it will take to get Iraq on its feet are patriots, while those who are honest are patronizingly marginalized.

There is some truth to this.

In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America.

I am actually shocked by this statement. The church and state have definetly been moving away from each other in the past few decades, and even more so in the past century.

In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental president on Earth Day while being the industry president every other day.

That is kind of funny. I don't know what that is supposed to prove though.

In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections.

A war with no casulities...it's a nice thought. How can you take over a large nation, losing only hundreds of soldiers in the process, and call it a failiure?

In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But even better evidence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about is hidden away.

People make decisions based on information. Sometimes this information is not concrete, other times it is. Bush thought that there was enough evidence to warrent an invasion. The pros outweighed the cons. As I see it, he gambled and lost. Now he's just trying to make the best of it.

In Bushworld, the C.I.A. says it can't find out whether there are W.M.D. in Iraq unless we invade on the grounds that there are W.M.D.

I believe you are criticizing the CIA now, not the President. The President did not create the CIA, nor does he lay down the guidelines for how it attains data.

In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft.

If there is a president to blame for that, it would be Clinton (although Bush Sr. did start the reductions towards the end of his term.) By 1994, our armed forces had been reduced to about 75% of what they were at the end of Reagan's term. Between 1992 and 2000, about half a million national defense personnel were removed from the armed forces. President Bush inherited this reduced military; he didn't create it.

In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists.

Perhaps more problems are being created than solved. If we do succeed in Iraq, I believe that it will just make the Terrorist burn with even more rage thanthey do now. On the other hand, if we succeed in Iraq and it is transformed into a rapidly developing country, we will see much broader support from many foreign nations that had previously been critical of our actions.

In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war.

True enough. I don't think that there was very much senior leadership strongly opposed to the war.

In Bushworld, it's perfectly natural for the president and vice president to appear before the 9/11 commission like the Olsen twins.

Ok, we're really trying to grab onto some here...anything.

In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops.

We do not disdain the process. I think we were just disappointed that a few nations did not decide to help with the effort (even if they were not involved militarily). I don't believe anyone, including the President, is pushing to "change the system".

In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your administration does not leak to the press, while you flood the best-known journalist in Washington with inside information.

Politics at its core.

 

[Squiggy]

I didn't write it. I posted it from a New York Times Op-Ed page. Like you, I thought it was an interesting read.

 

[BeardofPants]

BoP, No link to terrorism?
Really, no link?
How sure are you there's no link?

Is that the best you can do. Saddam funding the Palestinians? Oooh, we're real scared, those scary Palestinians are gonna come and explode themselves against the white-house. AND it's only going to take them 45 minutes to get here.

Here's what I was talking about:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/

 

[A.B.Normal]

Actually, in all recent polls the majority of Iraqis still support the US invasion in Iraq. Most of them would also like self rule, but the safety of their country is a larger consideration.

And who were they polling,I can't imagine we'd ever hear from the polsters who went knocking on the doors of anti-American/Western Iraqi's,so those results are going to be skewed. Al-Sistani has the support of the Shiites (who are the majority in Iraq) he does not support the US and at least for the moment hes not calling for action against them .Even if a lot of Iraqis favored the removal of Saddam to think they want any US control in Iraq questionable.I find it impossible to believe the majority support the US "being" in Iraq.

 

[Gonz]

I find it impossible to believe the majority support the US "being" in Iraq.

NEW DELHI, APRIL 28: A majority of Iraqis actually welcome the US invasion on their country though the jury is still out on whether coalition troops should pull out immediately or stay back, according to an opinion poll conducted by NDTV in Baghdad.

In what is billed as the first-ever opinion poll in the war-ravaged country in the last 25 years, 668 men and 332 women took part in the exercise conducted on April 22 and 23 in 25 different locations in the Iraqi capital.

IndianExpress

 

[freako104]

I am actually shocked by this statement. The church and state have definetly been moving away from each other in the past few decades, and even more so in the past century.

I dont agree with this at all. I think the separation has been disappearing

 

[RDX]

And who were they polling,I can't imagine we'd ever hear from the polsters who went knocking on the doors of anti-American/Western Iraqi's,so those results are going to be skewed. Al-Sistani has the support of the Shiites (who are the majority in Iraq) he does not support the US and at least for the moment hes not calling for action against them. Even if a lot of Iraqis favored the removal of Saddam to think they want any US control in Iraq questionable.I find it impossible to believe the majority support the US "being" in Iraq.

Quite the contrary. Happy content people do not make exciting news headlines. We rarely get a view of all the positive changes that have occured in Iraq.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040317.html

 

[A.B.Normal]

But Al-Sistani and the other clerics have a huge following ,and they are going to follow whatever they(clerics)decide and since they control the Majority of Iraqis ,well you can figure out the rest...

 

[Squiggy]

Seems we're only beginning to understand why its always been in constant turmoil...

 

[RDX]

I dont agree with this at all. I think the separation has been disappearing

OK, let me elaborate.

Was there a separation of church and state when America was founded? Contrary to popular opinion, no. The term “separation of church and state” was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter written to a Baptist Association in Danbury Connecticut in 1802. The Baptists Association had written to Jefferson about a rumor that the federal government was going to sponsor a denomination, making it the official church of the United States. Jefferson wrote back, “I contemplate with solemn reverence the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” This statement, written to a Baptists organization, assuring them that a single denomination would not be established as the official state religion, is the pretext to the movement of the court system to establish a barrier between the church and the state.

This idea is not found in any other historical documents until it was mentioned in the 1878 court case of Reynolds vs. United States; the plaintiffs used this letter as part of their argument that polygamy laws were unconstitutional. The court however looked at the letter in its ruling and used Jefferson’s statement to argue that the government could make no denominational distinction.

A term separation of Church and State was not used again in a court of law until 1947. In the supreme court case Everton vs. Board of Education the court quoted only eight words from Jefferson “...a wall of separation between church and state.”

It is quite evident to me that we have not had a real separation of Church and State until the middle part of the 20th century. Once may argue that just because the phrase “separation of church and state” was not established in its current form until the mid twentieth century, that the founding fathers had intending this from the very beginning. I find the truth to be rather shocking.

Patrick Henry wrote, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason people of other faiths have been offered asylums, prosperity and freedom of worship here.”

John Jay, the first chief justice of the US Supreme Court wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

A House Judiciary Report, written in 1854, said, “Christianity must be considered as the foundation upon which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. In this age there will be no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion.”

Today we would regard these people as radicals and narrow minded extremists. I don’t know of any mainstream politicians these days that would dare make these statements. The way that government and religion interact has radically changed since then. But to deny that our original founders did not consider religion to be an integral part of our government, is just foolish. We can however debate whether their stance was beneficial for the nation at that time.

 

[RDX]

But Al-Sistani and the other clerics have a huge following ,and they are going to follow whatever they(clerics)decide and since they control the Majority of Iraqis ,well you can figure out the rest...

While it is true that much of population is controlled by clerics, not all of the clerics have an anti American view. The bulk of the population (including the clerics) still support the US.